Skip to main content
Glama

Data Vermont

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 provide readOnly/idempotent safety, but the description goes far beyond: it defines the exact verdict categories, explains the crucial distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, notes that could_not_verify is not evidence, and mentions citations and reasoning. It also explains error handling with verification_error. This is rich behavioral disclosure with no contradiction.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with immediate trigger phrases and logically progressing to usage, routing, outputs, and caveats. It could be slightly condensed, but every sentence provides unique value; the opening is front-loaded and informative.

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—two routing paths, multiple verdicts, and error semantics—the description fully documents inputs, expected behavior, and return values. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explicit verdict enumeration and citation/reasoning details. It also contextualizes the tool as replacing multiple sequential calls, making it self-sufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage nuance for tolerance_pct, explaining that values 1-2 are for hallucination detection and that default is implied by wording capped at 5. It also gives an example of the claim parameter. This exceeds schema-only semantics.

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 purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb 'validate' and resource 'claim'. It includes trigger phrases and distinguishes itself from generic ask/search tools by focusing on fact-checking with verdicts. The routing between SEC EDGAR and grounded pipeline further clarifies scope.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: whenever the agent needs to check factual correctness of a user statement, and gives examples of natural-language triggers. It also describes the internal routing for company-financial vs. other claims, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of the 5-level 'explicit when/when-not/alternatives' requirement.

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

All Data Vermont 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx trio (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the polymarket cluster (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) could cause confusion without careful reading. However, the detailed descriptions effectively differentiate each tool's specific role.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow consistent snake_case convention with a verb-noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity). There are no mixed conventions or chaotic naming, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count4/5

At 34 tools, the set is extensive but justified by the server's broad scope covering Vermont open data, Pipeworx data platform, prediction markets, and utility features. Each tool earns its place, though the count is slightly high compared to typical servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers data retrieval, entity analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and claim validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct compliance tools), but the set is comprehensive for its stated purpose of data integration and analysis.

Resources