Skip to main content
Glama

Bcb Br

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already indicating read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, handling of multiple matches via figi_candidates, explicit reporting of unresolved identifiers, and internal multi-endpoint cascading. This goes far beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 lengthy but information-dense, with purpose front-loaded and structured breakdown by entity type. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists (e.g., repeated emphasis on non-equity instruments). It earns its length given the complexity of supported entity types and edge cases.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers expected behavior, including return characteristics (labels, unresolved array), ambiguity handling (figi_candidates), and failure modes (degradation). An agent has enough understanding to invoke it correctly without needing external documentation.

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 is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic detail: for 'value' it provides examples (AAPL, CIK, ISIN, brand/generic names) and a critical caveat about passing only the issuer name for bonds. This helps agents format input correctly beyond the bare schema 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?

Description states a specific verb+resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers' and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming use cases like 'find the CIK for...' and supported types. It clearly identifies the tool's role as the ID lookup utility, making it distinct from comparison or profile tools.

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?

Description explicitly instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', providing strong when-to-use guidance. It also mentions replacing 2-3 manual lookups, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for other scenarios, leaving some ambiguity for edge cases.

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

All Bcb Br 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose; even similar tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated by grounding behavior. Polymarket tools are separated by specific angles (arbitrage, edges, tracking, fill risk, cross-venue).

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use consistent snake_case with descriptive verbs (ask_, compare_, discover_, generate_, list_, recall_, etc.). No mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is on the higher end but justified by the breadth of functionality: Brazilian economics, Pipeworx data querying, company analysis, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, etc. Each tool seems necessary, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major CRUD operations and data retrieval across multiple domains. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to edit subscriptions directly, but unsubscribe/resubscribe works). Overall, the surface is well-rounded for the stated purposes.

Resources