Skip to main content
Glama

Data Seattle

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, so the bar is lower, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: the meaning of each verdict, especially that 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen... must not be shown as evidence,' and that 'unsupported' means no source exists. This goes well beyond basic safety hints and explains the tool's failure modes.

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 fairly long but every sentence adds value—trigger phrases, pipeline routing, verdict definitions, and error-handling clarifications. It is front-loaded with usage examples and structured logically. It could be trimmed slightly (e.g., the 'Replaces 4–6 calls' sentence is somewhat promotional), but it remains efficient for a complex tool.

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?

The description covers everything an agent needs to decide on and process a call: input type, routing rules, output structure (verdict + value + citation + reasoning), and special-case handling (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). With no output schema, this description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical guidance beyond the schema: it explains how 'tolerance_pct' interacts with claim wording (default implied, capped at 5) and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. It also provides example claim formats in the schema, but the description reinforces the intended use of the parameter.

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 opens with concrete trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and explicitly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly differentiates from siblings by explaining its dual path (SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims vs. grounded pipeline for anything else), making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides an explicit usage condition: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains when the fast path vs. grounded pipeline applies. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, so it stops 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 Seattle 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) can cause confusion due to overlapping functionality. Some tools like 'seattle_recent' are vague.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., validate_claim, resolve_entity). However, a few like 'seattle_recent' and 'pipeworx_trending' deviate slightly, and 'recent_alerts' mixes noun_verb.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a single server, covering data retrieval, prediction markets, Seattle data, memory, subscriptions, and utility. The broad scope feels bloated and overwhelming, making it hard for agents to find the right tool.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide array of domains with good depth in data retrieval and prediction markets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., Seattle tools limited to four datasets, no other city data), but overall it addresses most use cases its tools suggest.

Resources