Skip to main content
Glama

Latam Validate

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Changes

recent_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What's new with X" / "latest on Y" / "what happened to Z this week / month / quarter" / "updates on Acme" / "news on Tesla recently" / "what's happening with Apple" — change feed for a company in the last N days/weeks/months in ONE parallel call. Fans out to SEC EDGAR (filings since since), GDELT→GNews fallback (news mentions in window — GDELT preferred, GNews when rate-limited or 5xx), USPTO (patents granted; PatentsView API sunset May 2025 so this soft-fails until reactivated). since accepts ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative shorthand ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Returns structured changes[] grouped by source + total_changes count + pipeworx:// citation URIs. Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile (filings + fundamentals + LEI + patents) regardless of window.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type. Only "company" supported today.
sinceYesWindow start — ISO date ("2026-04-01") or relative ("7d", "30d", "3m", "1y"). Use "30d" or "1m" for typical monitoring.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193").

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readonly and idempotent. Description adds fan-out to multiple sources, fallback logic from GDELT to GNews, soft-fail for USPTO, and return structure with citation URIs. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Long but efficiently structured with example queries upfront. Every sentence adds information. Could be slightly more concise, but complexity justifies length.

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 3 params and no output schema, the description explains return structure, sources, fallback, and provides an alternative. Covers edge cases like USPTO sunset. Complete for the tool's purpose.

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 100% gives baseline 3. Description adds practical examples for 'since' (e.g., '30d'), explains 'type' is only 'company', and clarifies 'value' accepts ticker or CIK. Adds value beyond 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 it provides a change feed for a company in a date window, listing sources and output. It distinguishes from sibling 'entity_profile' by specifying when to use the alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit example queries show when to use, and the description directly says 'Use entity_profile instead when you want the static profile', giving clear when-not and alternative.

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

All Latam Validate 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

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same 5,702 tools with only subtle differences, and ai_visibility_check is essentially a single-entity subset of scan_competitor_ai_presence. The memory trio (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools also sit awkwardly alongside the data-query tools, making selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb_noun (validate_cnpj, resolve_entity, compare_entities), noun_verb (bet_research, entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare nouns with inconsistent suffixes (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk). The ask_pipeworx family uses inconsistent qualifiers (beta vs grounded), and validate_* is used for both checksum-only tools and full lookups.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly named 'Latam Validate' — only 5 tools relate to LATAM validation while the rest form a sprawling general-purpose data and prediction-market platform. Many tools could be consolidated (the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket_* family, the memory trio), suggesting the set is over-scoped for any single agent's typical workflow.

Completeness2/5

For the stated LATAM validation purpose, coverage is thin: only Brazil (CPF/CNPJ/CEP/banks) and Mexico (CLABE) are covered, with no validators for other LATAM jurisdictions. For the broader Pipeworx data platform, the surface is extensive but has notable gaps — grounded retrieval, claim verification, and arbitrage tools exist, yet many LatAm-specific data sources and common validation formats (RFC, RUT, DNI, CURP) are absent.

Resources