Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Marioncountyor

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses behavioral nuances: it returns one of six verdict types, explains the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, describes the verification_error payload, and notes the tool's ability to replace multiple sequential calls. This is rich, non-obvious context that significantly aids the agent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than typical, but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, routing logic, verdict semantics, edge-case warnings, and efficiency claim. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and remains organized. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (verdict, evidence value with citation, reasoning) and covers edge cases like could_not_verify and unsupported. For a non-trivial tool, this provides complete enough context for correct invocation and interpretation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning for tolerance_pct by explaining it overrides the implication from wording, with concrete guidance for hallucination detection. This exceeds the schema's basic description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with specific natural-language trigger phrases and clearly states the tool performs claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the verdict system and the two processing paths (SEC/XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use when the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct, and clarifies routing for financial vs. non-financial claims. It also warns against treating could_not_verify as evidence, which is a useful usage caution. It does not name alternative sibling tools explicitly, but the context is sufficiently clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Arcgis Marioncountyor toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to use each. Even overlapping functions like ask_pipeworx varieties are well-differentiated by mode (casual vs grounded vs multi-source).

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., query_layer, resolve_entity), but a few deviate with single-word verbs (forget, remember, recall) or noun_noun (layer_info). The pattern is mostly consistent with minor exceptions.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count is high and borders on heavy. However, the tools span multiple domains (GIS, financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), and each serves a unique role, so the count is justifiable but could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of data access and analysis tasks relevant to the inferred domain of a multi-purpose assistant. While the ArcGIS portion is limited, the overall surface is well-populated with few obvious gaps.

Resources