Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Peoria

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description provides rich behavioral context: it details two distinct processing pipelines (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), enumerates the possible verdicts, and carefully distinguishes 'could_not_verify' from 'unsupported' with explicit instructions on how to handle each. It also notes the tool replaces 4-6 sequential calls, giving the agent a clear operational model.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise yet dense, front-loaded with trigger phrases and followed by structured operational details: usage, processing paths, return values, and caveats. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the formatting (inline lists) keeps it scannable without wasting words.

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?

The description is fully self-contained: it explains what inputs are needed, how the tool behaves under different claim types, what output shape to expect (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning), and how to interpret edge cases (could_not_verify, unsupported). This is especially complete given no output schema is provided, preparing the caller for all likely outcomes.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with examples and constraints. The description adds context about claim semantics ('natural-language factual claim') and mentions the percent-delta math, but the schema covers the essential meaning. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose as a natural-language claim verification tool, providing specific trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…', 'true or false') and a direct statement: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes between two processing paths, making the function unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like search or research.

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?

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and explains the automatic routing for both company-financial claims and any other factual claims. While it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools as alternatives, the clear trigger phrases and universal scope leave little ambiguity about when to invoke this tool.

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

All Arcgis Peoria 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are very similar (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and serve the same purpose with slight variations, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the tool set mixes completely unrelated domains (ArcGIS geospatial vs. Pipeworx/Polymarket data), further confusing the purpose of each tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow multiple conventions: ask_pipeworx uses snake_case, while layer_info and query_layer use snake_case as well but with a different pattern. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; some are descriptive (validate_claim) while others are vague (process, run). The mix of conventions and lack of a unified naming scheme hurts predictability.

Tool Count1/5

At 34 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on ArcGIS Peoria. Only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) are actually related to geospatial data, while the other 31 are from external services (Pipeworx, Polymarket). This mismatch suggests the server is extremely poorly scoped.

Completeness1/5

For a geospatial server, the tool set is severely incomplete. It lacks basic GIS operations like spatial filtering, editing, or analysis. The three geospatial tools only provide schema discovery and simple attribute queries. Meanwhile, the bulk of the tools cover a completely different domain (data lookup, prediction markets), leaving the core domain almost entirely unaddressed.

Resources