Skip to main content
Glama

Statbank Md

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds significant behavioral context: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (pipeline failure) and 'unsupported' (no source exists), the exact verdict set, the presence of pipeworx:// citations, and the instruction that 'could_not_verify' must not be presented as evidence. This exceeds what annotations provide.

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 longer than the calibration examples, but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, use case, routing logic, return format, special verdict meanings, and the replacement of sequential calls. It is front-loaded with user-intent phrasing and includes a clear 'IMPORTANT for callers' caveat. No filler or redundancy.

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 fully explains the return value: verdict list, actual value with citation, and reasoning. It clarifies edge cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and error handling. Given the tool's complexity, two parameters, and rich annotations, this description is complete and self-contained.

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%, with both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) already described in the schema. The description adds extra meaning for tolerance_pct by explaining how it overrides the implied tolerance and how to set it for hallucination detection (1–2%). It also gives the context that the claim parameter is natural language and routes internally, adding semantic value beyond the 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 uses a specific verb ('validate', 'verify', 'fact check') and clearly states the resource being acted on: natural-language factual claims. It distinguishes itself by detailing the two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims and a grounded pipeline for all others), which differentiates it from generic search or lookup 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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and gives a clear routing rule (financial vs. other claims). It also warns that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and should not be treated as evidence. However, it does not name specific sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool versus them, so it falls just 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 Statbank Md 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in scope, and the prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) share similar functions. While some tools are distinct, the boundaries between many are unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix product-like identifiers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), descriptive nouns (entity_profile, subjects), and inconsistent verb forms (query_table, resolve_entity, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent verb_noun pattern is maintained across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overpopulated relative to its apparent purpose. The name 'Statbank Md' suggests a narrow statistical service, but only 3 tools are Statbank-specific; the rest form a sprawling general-purpose data toolkit. The count is far beyond what the core function needs.

Completeness3/5

For the Statbank subset, the surface is complete (browse subjects, get metadata, query data). As a general data research suite, it covers many domains (SEC, FDA, economics, prediction markets) but lacks execution/trading tools for prediction markets and has no bulk data export or analytics beyond excerpts. Notable gaps exist but many core workflows are covered.

Resources