Skip to main content
Glama

Washington State 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds substantial context beyond these: dual-path routing (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs grounded pipeline), specific verdict values, and the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (did not happen, has error details) and 'unsupported' (no source). This is valuable behavioral guidance that annotations do not provide.

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 long but information-dense, with every sentence earning its place. The structured flow from usage cues to return behavior to edge-case caveats is logical. The 'IMPORTANT for callers' section is a clear signal. Slightly front-loaded with examples could be considered verbose, but given the tool's complexity, it's appropriately sized.

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 is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers when to use, what it returns (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), edge-case semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported), and performance benefits. There is no output schema, so the description effectively fills that gap.

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 covers both parameters fully (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for tolerance_pct, advising 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection' and noting the default cap of 5, which goes beyond the schema. The claim parameter is well illustrated with examples in the schema and the description.

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 verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with specific verb ('verify') and resource ('claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking with a verdict output, and mentions specific paths for financial vs other claims.

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' and explains the routing for financial vs other claims. It doesn't name alternative tools for exclusions, but the context is clear and the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' note implies an efficiency benefit over alternative workflows.

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

All Washington State 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all serving data retrieval. Also, prediction market tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage) are closely related, causing potential ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: mostly snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) but includes camelCase (ai_visibility_check). No clear pattern, mixing verb_noun and other structures.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Washington State Open Data'; only 3 tools (datasets, metadata, query) are directly relevant, while the rest are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools. The count does not match the server's stated scope.

Completeness1/5

The tool set severely misaligns with the server name: it covers general data and prediction markets rather than Washington State Open Data. Only basic query and metadata tools exist for the stated domain, leaving many common dataset operations (e.g., CRUD) missing and providing entirely irrelevant functionality.

Resources