Skip to main content
Glama

Data Kcmo

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent) by explaining critical behavioral nuances: the meaning of could_not_verify (the check failed, not evidence), the distinction between unsupported and could_not_verify, and the source-routing behavior. This is exactly the kind of context agents need.

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 detailed and information-dense, but it is longer than ideal. It fronts the key trigger phrases, but the critical warning about could_not_verify is placed later in a long paragraph. Still, every sentence carries useful information, and the structure is logical.

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 there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return values (verdict list, actual value with citation, reasoning), the important error semantics, and the two processing pipelines. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly and 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already have detailed descriptions, including the tolerance_pct behavior and claim examples. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It includes explicit example phrasings, distinguishes claim verification from other research tools, and mentions the verdict output types. This is specific and 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the two internal paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for anything else) and notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, providing clear usage context.

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

All Data Kcmo 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
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research cluster is highly overlapping—beta is explicitly identical right now and grounded differs mainly in answer extraction. Several other pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the six prediction-market tools) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and benefit from clear prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, kcmo_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). However, conventions are mixed between bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and verb_noun forms, and similar names like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker add confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the bloat range, and only 3 are actually Kansas City-specific despite the server name. The surface bundles prediction markets, memory, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning alongside data lookup, making it heavy and unfocused; several meta-tools could be collapsed.

Completeness4/5

As a read-only data research platform, the surface is quite complete: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update, no direct citation-URI fetch tool, and a thin KC-specific set—but agents can work around them.

Resources