Skip to main content
Glama

Data Bloomington

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by detailing return semantics: the set of verdicts, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (including verification_error{stage,detail} and the warning not to treat it as evidence), and the distinction with 'unsupported'. It also discloses the routing behavior and evidence requirement, giving agents critical behavioral knowledge not available from annotations alone.

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 average but almost every sentence carries information. The initial list of query phrasings is slightly redundant but useful for pattern matching, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' callout is necessary. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, then provides structured details on return values and caveats.

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, two parameters, and no output schema, the description supplies the essential context: verdict outcomes, routing logic, evidence/citation behavior, and error-state semantics. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand both function and failure modes without additional documentation.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful value: it explains how tolerance_pct interacts with claim wording, provides the default cap of 5, and clarifies the override use case for hallucination detection. It also supplies concrete examples for the claim parameter beyond the schema's examples.

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 explicit natural-language query forms and states the core action: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by specifying the two pipeline paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all other facts), making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further differentiates between company-financial and other claims, and explains the benefit over sequential calls ('Replaces 4–6 sequential calls'), giving the agent clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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

All Data Bloomington 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the six Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, etc.) have blurry boundaries. The entity-research family (entity_profar, compare_entities, recent_changes) is also easy to misselect despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entaty, validate_claim), bare verbs (remember, recall, query), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Family prefixes and verbs help readability, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans loosely related domains — Bloomington open data, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, AI marketing, memory, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The scope feels heavy and unfocused relative to the 'Data Bloomington' server name.

Completeness4/5

The core research lifecycle is well covered: routing (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles/comparisons/changes, claim validation, entity resolution, subscriptions, and memory all exist. Minor gaps remain — no standalone tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI and no API-key management — but agents can work around them.

Resources