Skip to main content
Glama

Datos Ar

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral nuance: could_not_verify explicitly means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and unsupported means no source coverage. This is essential for correct agent interpretation.

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 ~200 words, front-loaded with query examples and core purpose. It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds value—routing logic, verdict list, and caveats—so it is appropriately sized for its complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the return structure (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and explains the two non-obvious verdict states. It provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly, including the efficiency benefit over sequential calls.

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?

Both parameters (claim, tolerance_pct) are fully described in the input schema with examples and constraints. The tool description itself does not discuss parameters, so baseline 3 applies for schema coverage of 100%.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides concrete query examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling research tools.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the two processing paths (SEC EDGAR vs grounded pipeline). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the strong use-case statement provides clear context.

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

All Datos Ar 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

Several tools cluster around the same underlying data router (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the prediction-market family has five overlapping members, so misselection is possible. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate most intents, but ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are close cousins.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case, and most follow a clear verb_noun shape like ask_pipeworx, get_series, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges) and the bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy surface that exceeds the 25-tool threshold where selection cost becomes a real problem for agents. The count is inflated by auxiliary concerns like memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, and AI-presence scans that sit alongside the core data-access mission.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflows are well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, get_series), entity resolution (resolve_entity), profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and prediction-market analysis all have end-to-end support. Memory and subscription lifecycles are also complete. Minor gaps exist — some sources soft-fail and there is little Argentina-specific tooling beyond the time-series pair — but agents can generally work around them.

Resources