Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nj

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?

Descriptions adds valuable context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it explains the distinct meanings of could_not_verify (with verification_error) and unsupported, clarifies that could_not_verify is not evidence, and describes the returned verdict set with citations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 comprehensive and reasonably well-structured, but it is somewhat long and includes the mildly marketing-like 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' line. Each sentence earns its place, but a slightly tighter version would be crisper.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers the input expectations, routing behavior, verdict vocabulary, and error semantics. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the input schema has 100% coverage, the description augments both parameters: it gives concrete claim examples and explains tolerance_pct's overrides and use cases (e.g., 1–2 for hallucination detection). This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verifier, listing multiple user intents (e.g., 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and stating the resource (authoritative sources). It also differentiates the tool from generic research siblings by explaining it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its role distinct.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and details the routing logic for company-financial vs. other claims. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or provide exclusions (e.g., when to prefer deep_research), so it falls just 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 Nj 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which all query Pipeworx data in different modes. However, their descriptions clearly differentiate them. Similarly, memory and subscription tools are separate. Overall, an agent can distinguish tools with moderate effort.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt. However, a few tools like 'datasets', 'metadata', and 'query' are single nouns, breaking the pattern. Overall, naming is consistent enough for an agent to predict behavior.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is above the typical range for an MCP server, but the server covers a wide domain (SEC, FRED, FDA, prediction markets, etc.) with specialized tools. The count is borderline heavy but justifiable given the scope. Some tools like memory and subscription management add to the count but serve necessary auxiliary functions.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for its intended domain of structured data querying and analysis. It covers data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, news, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps include dependency scanning only for npm and lack of direct web search, but meta-tools like ask_pipeworx fill many needs. Overall, it supports common workflows well.

Resources