Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nashville

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?

Annotations already convey read-only/idempotent, but the description adds critical behavioral nuance: distinguishes could_not_verify from unsupported, explains verification_error payload, and explicitly warns not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. It also notes that the tool consolidates 4–6 sequential calls, giving valuable operational insight.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and functional purpose. Each sentence contributes necessary context such as return verdicts, error handling, and routing logic. No filler, though it is denser than strictly necessary.

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?

Considering there is no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating all possible verdicts, explaining edge cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported), and describing the grounded vs structured paths. It covers the full lifecycle of the tool with no significant gaps.

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 covers 100% of parameters, providing baseline 3. The description goes beyond by clarifying tolerance_pct behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5) and recommending 1–2 for hallucination detection, which adds decision-relevant semantics not present in the schema.

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 defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and opens with concrete trigger phrases. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on verdict-based validation of factual claims, unlike broader QA or research tools.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and even explains internal routing for financial vs. other claims. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to exclude, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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

All Data Nashville 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 tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in current behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, and deep_research all overlap with the same underlying routing. The six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) share domain and response fields, making misselection likely despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout and prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, nashville_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) are consistent within themselves. However, the overall set mixes verb-first names (ask, compare, remember, subscribe) with noun/adjective-first names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, bet_research), so no single predictable pattern governs all tools.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server exceeds a coherent surface, especially for a server named 'Data Nashville' where only 3 of 34 tools actually serve Nashville data. The count is inflated by several largely unrelated feature families (AI visibility, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the set feel like an aggregation of multiple products rather than one focused server.

Completeness3/5

Individual families are fairly complete: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and Nashville has discovery/query/recent access. But the overall domain is unclear, and the Nashville-specific surface is thin (no search across datasets, no non-ArcGIS sources), leaving notable gaps relative to the server name.

Resources