Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cityofchicago

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses detailed behavioral semantics: verdict enum, two data pipelines, fallback routing, and crucial error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It explains the meaning of could_not_verify with verification_error and warns against interpreting it as evidence. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but information-dense. It front-loads example intents and usage, then covers behavioral details and error semantics. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure with semicolons and dashes keeps it readable. Not overly verbose for the complexity handled.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values (verdict list, actual value with citation, reasoning, verification_error). It also clarifies the meaning of each verdict and the difference between check-failure and no-coverage. The two-path routing and note about replacing sequential calls make the tool's scope complete.

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 already documents both parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds meaning to tolerance_pct by explaining how it overrides implied tolerance, its use for hallucination detection, and the default cap of 5. It also grounds claim with examples that map to the schema. This goes beyond the schema's basic type and description.

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 the tool verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources, with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'claims'. It provides example user phrasings and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on factual claim verification rather than general research or entity lookup.

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 clearly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and differentiates the handling of company-financial vs. other claims. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or name alternative tools, but the usage context is strong.

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

All Data Cityofchicago 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve query/research; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, and polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap on company research. An agent could easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but the verb-noun convention is inconsistent: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), some noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), and some are bare nouns (query, metadata, datasets). The pattern is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for the apparent scope, especially given the server name suggests a Chicago city-data focus while the vast majority of tools are generic data-research, prediction-market, and memory utilities. This feels like a kitchen-sink bundle rather than a focused, well-scoped toolset.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is a disjointed collection covering querying, research, memory, subscriptions, and prediction markets, but it lacks coherent lifecycle coverage for any single domain. For the named 'Cityofchicago' purpose, there is almost no city-specific functionality, and even as a general data tool, obvious gaps remain (e.g., no direct dataset management or update/delete operations).

Resources