Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cambridge

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable operational detail beyond this: the SEC EDGAR + XBRL path for company financials, the fallback to a grounded pipeline, the full set of verdicts, and a prominent warning that 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... not evidence for or against the claim.' This is rich, non-redundant behavioral context.

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?

Although the description is longer than typical, every sentence serves a purpose: example queries front-load trigger conditions, the usage statement defines scope, the pipeline description clarifies behavior, the verdict list sets expectations, and the caveat about could_not_verify is critical. It is well-structured and dense without fluff, making it highly effective for agent selection and invocation.

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 tool has significant complexity (two execution paths, multiple verdicts, error semantics) and no output schema, so the description must cover return values. It does so thoroughly: lists all verdicts, mentions the actual value with citation and reasoning, and distinguishes 'could_not_verify' from 'unsupported.' This is complete enough for an agent to know exactly what to expect and how to 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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters (`claim` and `tolerance_pct`), so the schema already fully documents their meaning. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond mentioning 'exact percent-delta math,' which does not clarify parameter formats or bounds. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the complete schema coverage.

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 explicitly states a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and 'use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It opens with example user phrasings that clearly indicate the intended trigger, distinguishing it from general Q&A or research tools among siblings.

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 provides a clear usage criterion ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and explains the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline). It mentions that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, reinforcing consolidation. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined.

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

All Data Cambridge 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most clusters have clear roles, and the detailed routing guidance separates ask_pipeworx from deep_research and grounded mode. However, three ask_pipeworx variants (one currently identical to stable), plus overlapping opportunity-discovery tools (polymarket_edges vs bet_research) and discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions), leave several boundary cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools group under readable prefixes (ask_pipeworx, cambridge_, polymarket_, pipeworx_) and are mostly snake_case. But the set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), verb_noun actions (resolve_entity, validate_claim), and noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_fill_risk), so no single convention predicts the full API.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' band, and the count is inflated by a kitchen-sink mix of data querying, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning. The server name 'Data Cambridge' suggests a narrow local-data scope, which makes the sprawl look even less appropriate.

Completeness3/5

Individual verticals are fairly complete: query/grounded/beta router levels, entity resolution/profile/compare/change, prediction-market discovery through fill-risk, and full memory and subscription CRUD. The major gap is discover_tools, which returns tools promoted as ready to call directly but no generic invocation tool is exposed, so the agent must route back through ask_pipeworx.

Resources