Skip to main content
Glama

Always Seven

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Resolve Entity

resolve_entity
Read-onlyIdempotent

"What's the ticker for…" / "find the CIK for…" / "what's the LEI for…" / "what's the RxCUI for…" / "look up the ID for…" / "what is X's official identifier" / "who owns X" / "is X a subsidiary of Y" — resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID. SUPPORTED TYPES: "company" (cross-source identity spine: 10-digit CIK + ticker + company_name from SEC EDGAR, legal-entity LEI from GLEIF with parent/ultimate-parent/children ownership when the LEI resolves, and security FIGI from OpenFIGI — by exact ticker map when a ticker is implied, and otherwise by name search, so NON-EQUITY instruments that never have a ticker (municipal and corporate bonds, notes, authority debt) DO resolve here; when a name matches more than one instrument it asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates to pick from, which is the correct answer to an issuer name that does not identify a single bond; every identifier is labelled with the source that established it, and an identifier that could NOT be resolved is stated explicitly under unresolved rather than omitted — accepts ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name as input; an ISIN like "CH0038863350" resolves to the LEGAL ENTITY that issued the security via the GLEIF ISIN-to-LEI mapping, covering non-US issuers EDGAR cannot reach), "drug" (returns RxCUI + ingredient + brand from RxNorm + pipeworx://rxnorm/concept/{rxcui} citation; accepts brand or generic name). LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully — if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, the EDGAR identifiers still return. Each call cascades through several lookup endpoints internally — using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYesEntity type: "company" or "drug".
valueYesFor company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., "ozempic", "metformin"). Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY — for a bond that is the ISSUER exactly as printed ("NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH"), never the question's full noun phrase ("NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds"): the FIGI lookup matches instrument names, so trailing security-class words match nothing.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\"). Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY — for a bond that is the ISSUER exactly as printed (\"NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH\"), never the question's full noun phrase (\"NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds\"): the FIGI lookup matches instrument names, so trailing security-class words match nothing."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: ambiguous matches return figi_candidates, unresolved identifiers are explicitly listed under 'unresolved', LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully, ISIN resolves to the issuing legal entity, and each call cascades through multiple internal endpoints. This thoroughly discloses what the agent should expect.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose appearing immediately and no filler sentences. However, much of the detail is packed into very long parenthetical clauses, which hurts scannability. It could be improved by using a structured list, though every sentence does earn its place.

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 available, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns. It covers output identifiers per entity type, source labels, ambiguity handling, unresolved fields, graceful degradation, and citation behavior. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret the result correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the input schema already documents both parameters, the description adds critical value: examples of valid values, the instruction to pass the entity name only, the warning against including security-class words for bonds, and the distinction between company and drug inputs. This guidance goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 opens with concrete trigger phrases and states the core function: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers. It names the exact identifier types returned (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and explicitly separates company vs. drug resolution, making its purpose distinct from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 gives an explicit usage rule: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also provides natural-language invocation examples. However, it does not name alternative tools or give clear when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full routing matrix.

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

All Always Seven 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also has fuzzy boundaries — both bet_research and polymarket_edges claim 'should I bet on X', and discover_tools versus suggest_questions both serve discovery. Despite very detailed descriptions, an agent would frequently struggle to pick the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly snake_case and readable, with coherent micro-families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx variants, remember/recall/forget). However, patterns are mixed: verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt) sits alongside noun-led names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and entity-related tools use three different conventions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, entity_profile). It's consistent within families but not across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well past the 25-tool threshold for a coherent set, and the scope is a scattered grab bag: a joke RNG, an AI-visibility probe, a 5,708-tool data router, prediction-market arb analytics, key-value memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and a feedback channel. Some of these are arguably platform additions rather than core tools, but as presented the count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The major workflow areas are well covered — data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, profiles, and change feeds; memory and subscriptions each have full lifecycle coverage. However, the server repeatedly references pipeworx:// citation URIs as fetchable yet provides no record-fetching tool, and the diffuse purpose makes it hard to assess what 'complete' even means. Notable gaps exist around citation resolution and execution of the arbitrage signals the Polymarket tools generate.

Resources