# Data Cityofchicago

> data.cityofchicago.org Socrata MCP.

- name: io.github.pipeworx-io/data-cityofchicago
- version: 0.1.2
- connection class: R0 (autonomous)
- trust: 95/100
- quality: –/100 (not scored)
- owner: not claimed
- descriptor: https://api.protogrid.dev/v1/servers/io.github.pipeworx-io%2Fdata-cityofchicago
- tools: https://api.protogrid.dev/v1/servers/io.github.pipeworx-io%2Fdata-cityofchicago/tools

**An agent can connect right now, no human step.** Remote endpoint, no authentication, reachable on the last probe.

## Connection (mcpServers)

```json
{
  "mcpServers": {
    "data-cityofchicago": {
      "type": "http",
      "url": "https://gateway.pipeworx.io/data-cityofchicago/mcp"
    }
  }
}
```


## Trust

- hygiene: 100
- liveness: 99
- freshness: 100
- provenance: 85
- drivers: +repository +namespace-matches-repo +website -thin-description +reachable +uptime-97% +updated-25d-ago
- Derived from observable signals (official registry feed and our own credential-free probes); no code audit performed.

## Quality –/100 (not scored)

Not scored: fewer than three checks apply, usually because no remote answered a credential-free probe or the server is a local package.

### protocol: 75 (weight 25)

- warn `protocol.modern`: newest supported version is 2025-03-26; 2026-07-28 not supported, older versions are deprecated until 2027-07-28
- n/a `protocol.stateless`: only applies to 2026-07-28 servers
- pass `protocol.transport`: streamable HTTP
- n/a `protocol.list_ttl`: only applies to 2026-07-28 servers

### authorization: n/a (weight 15)

- n/a `auth.prm`, `auth.as_metadata`, `auth.cimd`: no remote uses OAuth
- n/a `auth.secret_in_url`: no templated URL

### tool hygiene: n/a (weight 30)

- n/a `tools.descriptions`, `tools.description_length`, `tools.schemas`, `tools.annotations`, `tools.directory_hints`, `tools.token_cost`, `tools.api_dump`: tool list unknown (behind auth, not probed, or empty)

### stability: n/a (weight 15)

- n/a `stability.changes`, `stability.rug_pull`: tool list unknown

### dependencies: n/a (weight 15)

- n/a `deps.known_vulns`, `deps.mcp_sdk_version`, `deps.resolvable`: no npm or PyPI package

- tools: unknown
- tools last changed: 2026-10-07T14:07:09.712Z
- badge: [![protogrid quality](https://protogrid.dev/badge/io.github.pipeworx-io/data-cityofchicago.svg)](https://protogrid.dev/servers/io.github.pipeworx-io/data-cityofchicago)
- Checks run on what our credential-free, read-only probes observe; tools are never called and no code audit is performed.

### Tool changes

- 2026-10-07 `resolution_diff` removed
  - Field-by-field diff of TWO markets' settlement clauses (one from each of `a` and `b`; either can be Polymarket or Kalshi) — runs resolution_audit on both sides and compares source, settle time, precision, and evidence standard. Returns `equivalent`: "true" only when both sides parsed with enough confidence to compare AND no field conflicts; "false" when a specific conflict was found (differing_fields names which — e.g. ["source","settle_time"] for a Polymarket Bitcoin market settling on Binance's 1-minute candle at noon ET versus a Kalshi KXBTCD market settling on CF Benchmarks' BRTI 60-second average at 5pm EDT — SAME asset, DIFFERENT contract); "unclear" when one or both sides could not be confidently parsed (an absence of evidence is not evidence of equivalence — read raw_clause yourself in that case). Only flags a field as differing when BOTH sides gave a SPECIFIC comparable answer — a named source (e.g. "Associated Press, Fox News, NBC") against a generic one (e.g. Kalshi's "consensus of media organizations") is treated as the same evidence standard, not a conflict, since that is standard election-market boilerplate on both venues. Use this before sizing a polymarket_kalshi_spread pair as a real cross-venue arb, or standalone to sanity-check any two markets you suspect settle on different things.
- 2026-10-07 `validate_claim` removed
  - "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).
- 2026-10-07 `datasets` removed
  - Search dataset catalogue.
- 2026-10-07 `pipeworx_feedback` removed
  - Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.
- 2026-10-07 `ai_visibility_check` removed
  - Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model. Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free); pass `_apiKey` to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly for those calls). Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view. Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.
- 2026-10-07 `generate_llms_txt` removed
  - Generate a production-ready llms.txt file for any URL so AI crawlers (ChatGPT, Claude, Perplexity) can index the site cleanly. Fetches the page, extracts title/description/key links, and emits the standard llms.txt markdown format. Output is a single text blob ready to drop at site-root/llms.txt. Useful for: getting a client's site indexed by AI, drafting llms.txt for your own project, or auditing how an AI crawler would see a competitor.
- 2026-10-07 `suggest_questions` removed
  - What can I ask Pipeworx? / what is Pipeworx good for? / what can you do? / give me ideas / show me examples / getting started / what data do you have? — the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. Returns category-bucketed example questions (company financials, drugs & clinical trials, economics, real estate, prediction markets, weather, government & patents, science & academia, news) — each with the exact tool + argument shape that answers it, drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass `topic` (e.g. "finance", "pharma", "betting") to focus. Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).
- 2026-10-07 `resolution_audit` removed
  - Extract the settlement clause of a single Polymarket or Kalshi market: who publishes the settling number (source), the clock time + timezone it is taken at, the precision of the computation (e.g. "1-minute candle close" vs "60-second trailing average" vs "election outcome"), the evidence standard (official_source | consensus_reporting | any_credible_report | unspecified), and void_handling (cancellation/postponement settlement — reused verbatim from bet_research's cancellation_rule detector, not re-derived). Parses Polymarket's `description` field (fetched via polymarket_market) or Kalshi's `rules_primary` + `rules_secondary` fields (fetched via kalshi_market) with regex + a small vocabulary — no LLM pass, so an unusual clause reports confidence:"low" rather than a guess. Pass `market` as a Polymarket slug/URL or a Kalshi market ticker (e.g. "KXBTCD-26SEP1317-T66999.99"); a Kalshi EVENT ticker (e.g. "KXBTCD-26SEP1317") also works — it picks one representative market under that event, since the settlement mechanism is normally shared across all strikes/legs in one event. Use this before treating a polymarket_kalshi_spread row as a real arbitrage: two ladders that look alike can settle on different sources, at different times, with different precision — this tool is how you check. Pair with resolution_diff to compare two markets directly. KNOWN GAP: idiosyncratic phrasing that doesn't match the vocabulary returns confidence:"low" and evidence_standard:"unspecified" rather than an LLM-guessed answer.
- 2026-10-07 `polymarket_kalshi_spread` removed
  - Cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. The two venues sometimes price the same outcome 2-25pp apart because their participant pools differ — when the bet shapes are equivalent that delta is a real signal, when they aren't the tool says so. TWO MODES: (1) `topic` — 11 pre-mapped macro subjects ("fed", "btc", "eth", "cpi", "gdp", "sp500", "recession", "next_pope", "next_uk_pm", "next_israel_pm", "2028_president") auto-fetch the matching event on each venue. You do NOT have to use those exact keys: the topic is resolved through aliases and keywords, so "bitcoin", "fed rate decision", "inflation", "s&p 500" and "next pope" all land on the right subject, and `resolution.topic_matched_by` tells you whether it was an exact key, a known alias, a phrase found inside a longer question, or a single-keyword guess — treat "phrase" and "token" as a GUESS at what you meant. An unresolvable topic returns error:"mapping_failed" with mapping_stage:"topic_unrecognized" and known_topics[]; it never silently falls back to a default subject. (2) explicit `kalshi_event_ticker` + `polymarket_event_slug` for custom pairings — BOTH modes run the identical token-overlap matcher, so the same disclosures apply to both. `resolution` is returned in BOTH modes and says how each side's identifier was picked (which Kalshi series was queried, how many events came back, whether the chosen one had quoted markets; which Polymarket search query ran and why that event won). Fleet #2064: when two Polymarket candidates tie on resolution time `polymarket_selected_by` now SAYS so, names every tied slug, names the tie-break that actually decided it (the candidate whose metric_type matches the Kalshi series, else lexicographic slug order), and states whether the winner's metric matches the Kalshi series — it used to assert "picked the soonest-resolving" byte-identically on calls that returned DIFFERENT events, because the tie was settled by upstream fetch arrival order. RESPONSE: each venue's leg-by-leg prices (raw probability 0-1) plus matched spread[].top_spreads_pp (Kalshi − Polymarket) where the same outcome shows up on both sides. SAFETY FIELDS: compatibility_warning is a sentence and compatibility_codes[] the machine-readable form; BOTH can be non-empty on returned pairs, so read them even when matched_pairs>0. Codes: event_subject_mismatch (the two event titles share no subject words — probably not the same question), temporal_mismatch (the two events are about different SUBJECT months — e.g. Kalshi "CPI in October" vs Polymarket "September Inflation"), temporal_alignment_unknown (the subject month could not be parsed on one or both sides — NOT the same as confirmed-aligned; check each event yourself), non_equivalent_bet_shapes, no_candidate_pairs, unclassified_legs_excluded, pairing_unverified (set in EITHER mode whenever pairs are returned: the legs were matched by keyword and word overlap, not a shared resolution source). Each entry in top_spreads_pp carries its own flags[] (temporal_mismatch, temporal_alignment_unknown, event_subject_mismatch, low_token_overlap). A leg whose metric_type or match_subtype is "unknown" is NEVER paired — those comparisons land in spread.skipped_unclassified and, when the wording lined up, in spread.low_confidence_pairs[] for inspection only. temporal_alignment{polymarket_month,kalshi_month,aligned} tells you whether the two events are about the same SUBJECT calendar period, in EITHER mode — this is the period the question is ABOUT (e.g. "September" for a CPI release that settles in October), not necessarily when either side settles; null means it could not be computed (see temporal_alignment_unknown), not that the two sides align. Fleet #2062: this used to compare Polymarket's settlement date against Kalshi's subject month and call a match — fixed to compare subject month to subject month on both sides. FEES: every top_spreads_pp and low_confidence_pairs[] row carries edge_pp_gross (== |sp
- 2026-10-07 `polymarket_arbitrage` removed
  - Find arbitrage opportunities on Polymarket via monotonicity violations + partition-sum checks. Call with NO args for a `trending_scan` of the top ~200 markets by weekly volume; pass `event` for the strongest per-event partition_check, or `topic` for a themed cross-event scan. `event` (recommended for a specific market): pass a Polymarket event slug like "fed-decision-may-2026" or "when-will-bitcoin-hit-150k"; walks child markets, checks date-axis / threshold-axis ordering AND computes the partition_check (sum of YES prices across mutually-exclusive legs — should ≈1; deviations >3pp emit a BUY/SELL EVERY LEG signal). `topic` (for cross-event scanning): pass a seed question like "Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal" or "Fed rate decision"; searches related events across the platform, flattens markets, runs the comparator on the union. Cross-event mode catches "...by May 31" vs "...by Jun 30" patterns that single-event misses. SEMANTIC ANCHOR: cross-event pairs require ≥0.30 Jaccard similarity on question tokens (prevents Powell-Fed-Pause being paired with Powell-DOJ-probe); skipped_low_similarity surfaces the rejected pair count. PARTITION FILTER: drops will-person-X / will-manager-Y / will-someone-else- placeholder slugs; partitions with >20% placeholder fraction return null arb signal. Response: opportunities[] (gap_pp, suggested_trade, reasoning, monotonicity violation context), and in event mode partition_check{sum_yes_prices, gap_from_1, placeholders_filtered, suggested_trade}. FEES: every opportunities[] row and partition_check.arbitrage carry edge_pp_gross (== gap_pp / overround_pp), fees_pp, edge_pp_net, net_positive, plus polymarket_fee_pp, fee_basis and fee_categories[]. BOTH cost components are modeled: Polymarket's own per-category TAKER FEE (fee = shares × rate × p × (1-p), rates crypto 0.07 / sports-economics-culture-weather-other 0.05 / finance-politics-mentions-tech 0.04, geopolitics and world events fee-free; verified against Polymarket's own docs as of 2026-09-13) and Polygon gas (~$0.02/leg). The taker fee dominates: ~$1.75 per 100 shares on a crypto market at 50c versus $0.02 of gas, so rows that looked profitable before fleet #1927 may now show net_positive:false — that is the correction, not a regression. Each leg is priced at ITS OWN market's rate and price (the fee curve peaks at 50c and falls toward both extremes). fee_basis says where the rate came from: 'payload' (read off the market, the normal case), 'category' (mapped from its fee category), 'fee_free', or 'fallback' (rate unknown — charged at the modal 0.05 rather than assumed free, so an unreadable market is never reported as costless). Where fill_check reprices against live depth, this does NOT double-count that spread cost. FILL CHECK: when the partition signal fires, arbitrage.fill_check prices it against live CLOB depth (theoretical_edge_pp_at_book vs realizable_edge_pp at 1000 shares/leg, thin_legs[]) — realizable_edge_pp ≤ 0 means the overround exists only at last-trade, not in the book; do not trade it. For custom sizing use polymarket_fill_risk.

Full history: https://api.protogrid.dev/v1/servers/io.github.pipeworx-io%2Fdata-cityofchicago/changes

## Remotes

- https://gateway.pipeworx.io/data-cityofchicago/mcp (streamable-http, auth none, reachable true, uptime30d 0.9652174)

## Packages

_none_

## Tools (0)

_none observed_