Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sonoma

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: verdict enums, the meaning of could_not_verify (with verification_error payload and explicit warning not to treat it as evidence), the meaning of unsupported, and the tolerance override behavior. This goes far beyond the annotations and is highly transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, usage scope, distinct processing paths, return values, and critical caller warnings are all packed logically. It is front-loaded with user-intent keywords and maintains a clear structure with an IMPORTANT callout for the most confusing behavior.

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 high complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the verdict types, the actual value with citation, reasoning, and the two error-like states (could_not_verify and unsupported). It also covers both financial and non-financial claim routing, making it complete for a caller.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance, capping at 5, and suggesting 1–2% for hallucination detection. This extra nuance justifies a score above baseline.

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 states a highly specific verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, listing trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explaining the two distinct processing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and explicitly frames the tool as a replacement for 4–6 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further distinguishes when to expect the structured financial path versus the grounded fallback, and clarifies edge cases (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). This provides clear when-to-use direction without ambiguity.

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

All Data Sonoma 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded reuses the same router, and deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx for multi-part questions. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity all cluster around overlapping research/comparison tasks despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity), some are bare nouns (datasets, metadata, polymarket_edges), some are imperative verbs (remember, forget, query), and some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes help, but the overall convention is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels overstuffed for a coherent single-purpose MCP server. It spans unrelated domains: Sonoma County open data, a general structured-data router, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checking, and llms.txt generation—each could reasonably be its own smaller server.

Completeness4/5

The core research workflow is well covered: routing, grounded verification, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market execution checks are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update/edit, no general pipeworx:// record-reader tool, and a read-only open-data surface, but agents can usually work around these.

Resources