Skip to main content
Glama

Texas Open Data

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?

Annotations already indicate a safe read-only, idempotent operation, so the description adds valuable context: it details the SEC EDGAR/XBRL path for financial claims, the grounded pipeline for others, and importantly distinguishes could_not_verify (pipeline failure, not evidence) from unsupported (no source covers it). This goes well beyond annotations and prevents misinterpretation of results.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and provides a well-organized flow: usage, processing paths, return values, caveats. It is somewhat long but dense with necessary information for a complex tool. Every major sentence contributes value; a slight trim could improve conciseness.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description fully explains return semantics: enumerated verdicts, grounded actual value with citation, reasoning, and the critical error-handling distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also explains the tool's efficiency benefit. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with clear descriptions. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning; it only indirectly references tolerance by mentioning 'exact percent-delta math'. With full schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verbs like 'validate', 'fact check', and 'verify'. It distinguishes itself from sibling research/query tools by framing the purpose as checking factual correctness and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, which uniquely positions its role.

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 states when to use it: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and notes unsupported means no source exists. It lacks explicit when-not guidance or named alternatives, but the context is strong.

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

All Texas Open Data 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
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are individually well-described, but there is overlapping functionality among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as multiple prediction market tools. The detailed descriptions help, but the number of similar tools creates some ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive prefixes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). There are minor deviations like 'deep_research' vs 'bet_research' but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'Texas Open Data' but only 3 of 33 tools (datasets, metadata, query) are directly related to Texas open data. The remaining tools cover a much broader domain (Pipeworx ecosystem), making the tool count inappropriate for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated purpose of Texas Open Data, the tool surface is incomplete—only basic query and metadata capabilities are provided, lacking data management, update, or delete operations. As a general pipeworx server it might be more complete, but the name suggests Texas-specific data.

Resources