Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Phoenix

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 annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds crucial behavioral context: defines the verdict enum, explains could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, distinguishes unsupported, and outlines the routing logic. This significantly helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 lengthy but densely informative, with front-loaded trigger phrases and well-organized sections (purpose, paths, return values, error semantics). While verbose, every sentence serves a purpose for a complex tool, so it earns a high score though not perfect conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported), and the two routing paths. It provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers both parameters with 100% coverage, and the description adds extra semantics: tolerance_pct overrides implied wording, has a range (0.5-50), and is recommended for hallucination detection. Claim examples clarify expected input format. This elevates beyond the schema baseline.

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 verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with trigger phrase examples. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison), making its unique role clear.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the two processing paths (company-financial vs other claims). It implies alternatives by saying it replaces 4-6 calls, but does not name specific sibling tools to avoid, so slightly below full marks.

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

All Arcgis Phoenix 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask/research family is crowded: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog and require careful description reading to select correctly. Prediction-market tools also overlap in scope, though each has a reasonably distinct angle.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage), and some are adjective_noun or brand-prefixed phrases. No consistent verb/noun ordering pattern exists across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for the apparent focus, especially since the server is named 'Arcgis Phoenix' but only 3 of the tools are actually GIS tools. The bulk is a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market ecosystem plus unrelated utilities, making the set feel over-stuffed and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx data side is fairly complete for lookups, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, and subscriptions, but the ArcGIS Phoenix portion is only search/schema/query and lacks any analysis, geocoding, or editing capability. The presence of generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency highlights that the overall domain is undefined and therefore hard to call complete.

Resources