Skip to main content
Glama

Data Europa

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description explains key behavioral nuances: the could_not_verify result means the check didn't happen and carries a verification_error, not evidence for/against the claim; unsupported means no source covers it. It also discloses the routing logic (SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and the fact that it replaces multiple sequential calls, giving the agent a clear model of what the tool does and how to interpret its outputs.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries weight: trigger examples, routing logic, return values, and an 'IMPORTANT for callers' note. It opens with natural-language triggers, then explains the core behavior, return structure, and exceptions, all without repetition. The structure is logical and easy to scan.

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 covers what the tool returns (verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning) and how to interpret edge cases (could_not_verify, unsupported). It also explains the processing pipeline and the performance benefit (replacing 4–6 calls), making the tool's behavior and limitations clear for an agent.

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?

While the schema already covers both parameters at 100%, the description adds valuable semantics by explaining tolerance_pct's behavior: it 'Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording' and recommends setting 1–2 for hallucination detection, plus notes the default cap of 5. This is meaningful guidance beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and explicitly maps to user intents like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…' with concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing verdict-based verification, returning a structured verdict, and replacing 4–6 sequential calls.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides trigger phrases and explains the routing behavior for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives to rule out (e.g., search or ask_pipeworx_grounded), so slightly less than 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 Europa 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded are highly similar; deep_research also overlaps with ask_pipeworx. This makes it hard for an agent to distinguish which to use.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing camelCase (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check) with snake_case (deep_research, compare_entities). Some are verb phrases, others are nouns (groups, tags), with no unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools covering EU open data, general data retrieval (Pipeworx), and prediction markets (Polymarket), the count is too high for a coherent, focused server. Many tools are redundant or meta-tools.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Data Europa', the EU open-data tools are basic (search, package, groups) lacking update/delete or analysis. The additional Pipeworx/Polymarket tools are extensive but unrelated, making the overall surface incomplete for the implied domain.

Resources