Skip to main content
Glama

Data Montreal

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond annotations by detailing the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL and grounded pipeline), the exact verdict values, and the crucial distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. This is especially valuable because annotations only indicate read-only/idempotence, not these operational nuances.

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 each sentence contributes. It opens with natural-language trigger examples, states purpose, covers two paths, return values, and critical caller caveats. While some could be tightened, the structure (general → specific → caveats) is logical and the warnings are essential.

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?

For a tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it explains routing logic, verdict semantics, evidence citations, and error handling (verification_error). The only missing piece is a formal output schema, but the description compensates by listing the return fields.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, including tolerance_pct semantics and examples for claim. The description adds only marginal value by mentioning 'exact percent-delta math' for financial claims, but the parameter-level guidance is already present in the schema. Thus baseline 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 validates natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with explicit example phrasings ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on claim verification, and explicitly mentions replacing multiple 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?

It gives clear context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains routing for company-financial vs other claims. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or compare to specific alternative tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

All Data Montreal 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the several polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) have overlapping prediction-market territory. Descriptions help differentiate, but the overlaps could still cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt). A few tools deviate with noun/adjective prefixes (montreal_datasets, montreal_recent, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) or single verbs (remember, recall, forget), but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy. While each tool has a distinct role, the sheer number—spanning data access, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools—makes the surface harder for agents to navigate compared to a more focused server.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data-gateway purpose, the server covers a wide range: lookups, research, entity resolution, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The Montreal-specific subset (datasets, query, recent) is adequate for the apparent scope, with only minor gaps like no subscription-update tool.

Resources