Skip to main content
Glama

Data Edmonton

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description substantially adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it defines the meaning of each verdict, warns that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and explains unsupported vs could_not_verify. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior that the agent needs to interpret correctly.

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 densely packed with operational detail. Every sentence carries weight—examples, routing, verdict definitions, and caller warnings. It could arguably be split into subsections for easier scanning, but the structure inside a single paragraph is acceptable for the complexity.

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 absence of an output schema, the description covers return values, edge cases, and error semantics. It also explains the internal pipeline enough for an agent to judge reliability. No significant gaps remain.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-documented. The description adds extra semantics for tolerance_pct, explaining how it overrides claim-implied tolerance and suggesting values for hallucination detection. This goes beyond the schema's minimal field hint and directly informs effective parameter choice.

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 example queries and clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools with specific verdict outputs and mentions the structured SEC EDGAR path versus grounded fallback, making its scope explicit.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing logic for different claim types. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternative tools for other use cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Data Edmonton 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have significantly overlapping scopes. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all return grounded answers with different levels of verification. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also has fuzzy boundaries that could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, scan_dependency). A few nouns like entity_profile and recent_alerts deviate slightly, and the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) are single-word verbs, but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server whose name suggests a focused Edmonton open-data scope; only 3 tools actually relate to Edmonton data. Even as a general data platform, the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold and includes many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback) that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For the Edmonton open-data subset, search, query, and recent-records cover the core lifecycle well. The broader Pipeworx toolset is comprehensive (entity profiles, comparisons, claims, subscriptions, memory), with only minor gaps like a direct catalog-browsing tool for the 1393 sources.

Resources