Skip to main content
Glama

Noaa Tides

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by detailing the two routing paths, the exact verdict values, the semantics of could_not_verify (with verification_error structure) versus unsupported, and a critical caller warning not to present could_not_verify as evidence. This is rich behavioral disclosure that fully answers the 'how does it behave' question.

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 dense but every sentence carries purpose—starting with user-intent examples, then the core directive, then routing details, return shape, and an important caller caveat. No redundancy; it is front-loaded and well-structured for a tool of this 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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values: verdict options, actual value with citation, reasoning, and the verification_error structure. It also explains both parameter behaviors and error semantics, leaving minimal ambiguity about invocation and results.

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?

While the schema already covers both parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful semantic guidance for tolerance_pct: it overrides the implied wording tolerance, defaults to a cap of 5, and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. This enriches understanding beyond the raw schema.

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 does natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, using phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that...'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by detailing the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its specific role unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains when each code path applies (company-financial vs. other claims). It also advises on the meaning of could_not_verify, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Noaa Tides 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The 7 NOAA-specific tools (stations, station_metadata, water_level, currents, met_obs, predictions, datums) are clearly distinct, but they are buried among ~31 Pipeworx platform tools with heavy internal overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route factual queries, while polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread all analyze prediction-market opportunities. An agent cannot easily tell whether the generic question-answering or prediction-market tools are the right choice without reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the naming conventions are inconsistent: some use descriptive nouns (stations, datums, predictions), some use noun_verb pairs (water_level, met_obs), and the Pipeworx batch mixes vendor-prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), and multi-word verbs (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence, ask_pipeworx_grounded). No predictable pattern unifies the set.

Tool Count1/5

38 tools is far too many for a server named 'Noaa Tides' — only 7 tools relate to NOAA tide/current data, and the other 31 are an unrelated general-purpose data platform (SEC filings, prediction markets, npm packages, AI visibility scanning, memory storage). The overwhelming majority of the surface has nothing to do with the server's stated purpose, making the count and composition a severe mismatch.

Completeness4/5

For the nominal NOAA tides domain, the surface is reasonably complete: station listing, metadata, observed water levels, currents, meteorological observations, tide predictions, and datums cover the core workflows. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no harmonic constituents or extreme water-level statistics tool), but the essential operations are present. The unrelated tools do not fill gaps in the NOAA domain — they are clutter rather than coverage.

Resources