Skip to main content
Glama

Statfin Fi

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints, the description discloses source fan-out (SEC, GDELT/GNews, USPTO), fallback logic (GNews on rate limit/5xx), future failure mode (PatentsView sunset), and return structure. This is rich behavioral context that the annotations do not capture.

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 dense but well-organized, front-loading intent with example queries before covering sources, parameters, and alternatives. Every sentence contributes, though the length is substantial; could be slightly tightened but remains appropriately structured for the tool's 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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly communicates return format (changes[] grouped by source, total_changes, citation URIs), source behavior with fallbacks, and a usage boundary via entity_profile. This covers the essential context for a multi-source tool and leaves minimal ambiguity.

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 covers all parameters at 100%, but the description adds practical value by explaining `since` with both ISO and relative shorthand examples, and recommending '30d' or '1m' for typical monitoring. This goes beyond the schema's basic type descriptions, though not exhaustively.

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 defines the tool as a change feed for a company over a time window, using concrete example queries ('What's new with X', 'latest on Y'). It distinguishes itself from sibling entity_profile by explicitly stating when to use the alternative, ensuring the resource and verb are specific and non-overlapping.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use signals through natural language examples and directly names entity_profile as the alternative for static profiles. This gives the agent clear decision boundaries, exceeding simple 'use when' guidance.

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

All Statfin Fi 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly the same routing purpose (beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'), and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research create a dense cluster an agent must pick through. The descriptions are unusually detailed and do differentiate them, but the boundaries between the ask_pipeworx variants and between bet_research/polymarket_edges/arbitrage remain easy to misselect.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or domain-prefix patterns (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity). Minor deviations exist: subjects and table_meta are bare nouns rather than verbs, the ask_pipeworx family uses an ask_ prefix while the closely related deep_research does not, and entity appears as both a prefix (entity_profile) and a suffix (resolve_entity).

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for 'too many,' and the mismatch is sharpened by the server name 'Statfin Fi': only 3 of 34 tools (query_table, subjects, table_meta) actually relate to Statistics Finland, while the rest are a sprawling multi-domain platform covering prediction markets, AI visibility, npm packages, memory, and subscriptions. The count is appropriate for a general data platform but not for the apparent StatFin scope, making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness4/5

The platform covers the full research lifecycle: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), identifier resolution (resolve_entity), lookups (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities), verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), monitoring (subscribe, recent_alerts, recent_changes), and memory (remember/recall/forget), with no obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist — there is no keyword search across the StatFin catalog (browse-only via subjects), and one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on rather than part of a coherent domain.

Resources