Skip to main content
Glama

Bnm My

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses graceful degradation (EDGAR identifiers still return if GLEIF/OpenFIGI unavailable), ambiguity behavior (asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates), and the explicit unresolved field. It also reveals internal cascading lookups, giving the agent realistic expectations about cost and behavior.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long, but every section earns its place: usage examples, primary trigger, detailed type semantics, degradation behavior, and parameter semantics. It is front-loaded with the core directive and uses explicit type labels to organize dense information.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior: labeled identifier sources, unresolved results, figi_candidates, and exactly what resolves for each type. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret its likely output.

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 already 100%, but the description adds substantial semantics: accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), the critical instruction to pass only the issuer name and not trailing security-class words, and entity-specific examples such as ISIN-to-LEI resolution. This materially reduces misparameterization.

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 precise verb-object relationship: resolve a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools. It enumerates supported entity types (company, drug) and concrete outputs (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), clearly distinguishing the tool from profile/validation-focused siblings.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and explains it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. It does not explicitly contrast the tool with siblings such as entity_profile or compare_entities, so the when-to-use guidance is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Bnm My 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

Many tools occupy clearly different niches, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap the same router concept, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all target similar 'find an edge' territory. An agent would need to read very long descriptions carefully to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and usefully grouped by prefixes like bnm_, polymarket_, and pipeworx_, which makes the set fairly scannable. However, conventions mix verb-first names (ask_, discover_, resolve_, validate_) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes), so it is not a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool range, and the server bundles several distinct domains: BNM data, the Pipeworx research platform, prediction-market analysis, and memory/subscription management. This breadth would be better split into separate focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The BNM-specific surface is well covered, with dedicated tools for the main series plus a generic bnm_endpoint passthrough for anything else. The broader data side is also unusually complete, with routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, and claim verification; only minor gaps remain, such as no dedicated historical endpoint for some BNM series.

Resources