Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tucson

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', the meaning of verification_error, and that 'could_not_verify' must not be treated as evidence. It also explains the pipeline routing and mathematical tolerance logic, adding significant transparency.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and includes rich, necessary detail about return semantics and edge cases. Every sentence carries useful information, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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 thoroughly explains return values (verdict, evidence, reasoning), error handling, and routing behavior. It also mentions performance benefits (replacing multiple calls) and covers both major claim categories, making it fully complete for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema for parameters; it mentions tolerance in context but the schema already provides robust descriptions and defaults. No additional semantic value is provided beyond what is already structured.

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: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides explicit example queries and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking and replacing sequential lookup calls. The verb 'verify' and resource 'claim' are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context on when to use it: whenever the agent needs to check if a user's statement is factually correct. It also outlines routing rules for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly mention 'when not to use' or name alternative tools as exclusions, so it stops short of the top score.

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

All Arcgis Tucson 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

While individual tool descriptions are detailed and specific, the set includes overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several prediction market tools with similar purposes (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). The broad range of unrelated domains means many tools are distinct, but some pairs are ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use snake_case but follow no consistent pattern. Some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile), and some have inconsistent structure (discover_tools, recent_alerts). The mix of conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Tucson', as only 3 tools relate to ArcGIS (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer). The rest span completely unrelated domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, npm scanning, etc.), creating a severe mismatch between server name and tool functionality.

Completeness3/5

Considering the actual tool surface (a diverse data retrieval and prediction market analysis set), it is reasonably complete for common lookups (SEC, FDA, economics, news, bets). However, it lacks web search and the ArcGIS tools are minimal. The absence of a cohesive domain makes completeness hard to judge, but for the implied data-retrieval purpose, it's passable.

Resources