Skip to main content
Glama

Data Norfolk

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining the two-path routing (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the exact verdict types returned, and the distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported.' This adds crucial behavioral context that annotations cannot convey, especially the warning that 'could_not_verify' is not evidence for or against the claim.

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 longer than the calibration ideal but is well-structured and front-loaded with examples. Every sentence adds value, covering usage, routing, return values, and important error semantics. The 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' note adds useful context, though the description could be tightened without losing key information.

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 complexity of the tool and the absence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It fully explains the verdict vocabulary, the citation mechanism, the meaning of each failure mode, and the fallback routing. This provides the agent with everything needed to correctly interpret and use the tool's 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The tool description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema offers, so the baseline 3 applies. The mention of 'exact percent-delta math' is more about the tool's internal logic than parameter usage.

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: verifying natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources. It provides specific example intents ('fact check', 'verify the claim that...') and distinguishes this from general Q&A tools by emphasizing claim verification with structured verdicts. The scope is precise (company-financial vs. other claims), making it distinct from sibling 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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also details the routing logic for different claim types, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion cases, so it lacks the explicit alternative/contrast 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 Norfolk 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research overlaps ask_pipeworx for multi-faceted questions, and the five Polymarket tools plus bet_research all target the same market-analysis space. Several tools appear to do the same thing, and even detailed descriptions can't fully separate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly readable, but the set mixes bare nouns (datasets, query, recall) with verb phrases (generate_llms_txt, validate_claim) and domain-prefixed compounds (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). The ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set, especially since many are meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) or one-off utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency). The server tries to cover data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility in a single surface.

Completeness3/5

Within each subdomain (data lookup, memory, subscriptions, Polymarket) the main workflows are covered, and the memory/subscription clusters have full CRUD. But the server name promises Norfolk Open Data, which is barely represented by three read-only tools, and odd one-offs like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency have no supporting ecosystem.

Resources