Skip to main content
Glama

Data Batonrouge

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max 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.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral nuance beyond that: it explains that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and contrasts this with 'unsupported' (no coverage). This is exactly the kind of context (error semantics, evidence interpretation) that annotations cannot convey and prevents misuse.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads natural-language triggers, explains the two routing paths, enumerates verdict types, and clarifies error cases. Every sentence contributes information, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity. It is not as tight as a two-sentence ideal, but it avoids waste.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully documents the return payload (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and the meanings of each verdict. It also covers failure modes (could_not_verify, unsupported), the tolerance_pct parameter, and how this tool replaces multiple sequential calls. For a tool with this complexity, the description is complete and self-contained.

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 at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by explaining tolerance_pct defaults/override behavior and giving a concrete use case (set 1-2 for hallucination detection). That goes beyond the schema's simple data type description and helps the agent choose parameter values appropriately.

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 concrete invocation phrases and clearly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It explicitly distinguishes between the structured SEC EDGAR fast path for company-financial claims and the grounded pipeline for all other factual claims, which also differentiates it from sibling tools like query, deep_research, or compare_entities.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' gives clear invocation context. It also provides routing guidance (company-financial vs. other claims), recommendations for tolerance_pct in hallucination detection, and clarifies that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, helping an agent decide when to call this tool directly.

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

All Data Batonrouge 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct, but the ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are near-identical routers (beta currently matches stable exactly), and several prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) have overlapping use cases. Detailed descriptions mitigate but don't fully eliminate the risk of an agent picking the wrong member of a cluster.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, subscribe). Minor deviations like bare nouns (datasets, metadata) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), plus the branded ask_pipeworx variants, keep it from a perfect pattern but the style remains predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even for a broad research platform; many are meta/utility tools (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions, discover_tools) tangential to the core data-access purpose. The server name suggests a small Baton Rouge Open Data server, making the actual count a poor match for that name.

Completeness4/5

Within its actual scope, coverage is strong: universal query, grounded mode, deep research, entity/comparison profiles, entity resolution, claim validation, prediction-market edge/arbitrage/fill-risk, memory, and subscriptions all have lifecycle-appropriate tool sets. Obvious gaps are hard to find; the main issue is that the set is over-inclusive rather than incomplete.

Resources