Skip to main content
Glama

art

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it cascades through several lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, exposes unresolved identifiers explicitly, returns figi_candidates on ambiguity, and labels each identifier with its source. This goes well beyond the annotations and is critical for correct use.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with user queries and a clear directive, but it becomes a dense wall of nested parentheticals and run-on examples. Much of the detail is valuable, but it could be broken into clearer sections or bullets to improve scannability without losing substance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return semantics; it does, covering labeled identifiers, unresolved fields, figi_candidates, and per-type outputs. It is thorough for a complex multi-source lookup tool, though the lack of a formal output shape and the occasional ambiguity around exact response structure keep it from a perfect score.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description massively enriches both parameters: it explains that 'value' should be the entity name only, gives concrete examples, warns against including security-class words for bonds, and details how 'type' selects the resolution pipeline. This is far more than the schema's terse field descriptions provide.

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 states a specific action ('resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers') and names the exact resource class. It also distinguishes itself by emphasizing 'other tools require as input' and covering multiple entity types, which separates it from siblings 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?

It gives direct usage instruction: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies supported input types and mentions limitations like ambiguous bond instruments returning figi_candidates. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool in favor of entity_profile or compare_entities.

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

All art 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Tools are a mix of art-related and Pipeworx data tools, with no clear boundary. Many Pipeworx tools overlap in functionality (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, bet_research), causing confusion. Art tools are distinct but sparse.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case but follow inconsistent patterns: some are verb-based (ask_pipeworx, search_artworks), others are noun-based (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback). There is no unified convention across the server.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for an art-focused server; only 4 tools (search_artworks, get_artwork, get_departments, generate_llms_txt) relate to art. The rest are from a different domain (Pipeworx), creating a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness2/5

For the art domain, only basic search and retrieval are provided; missing browsing, filtering, or creation tools. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, leaving the art surface incomplete.

Resources