Skip to main content
Glama

uored

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses ambiguity behavior (returns figi_candidates instead of asserting), explicit unresolved identifiers, source labeling, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources are unavailable, and internal cascading lookup behavior. This is far more than annotations provide and compensates for the missing output schema.

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 examples and the key directive, and nearly every clause adds value. It is longer than average because of nested parentheticals, but it remains organized enough that the length is justified.

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 and a high-complexity multi-source lookup, the description covers inputs, output behavior, ambiguity handling, unresolved identifiers, source provenance, and failure degradation. An agent has what it needs to invoke the tool and interpret results.

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 schema already covers both parameters, the description adds crucial semantics: exact accepted forms for ticker/CIK/ISIN/name, drug brand/generic examples, and a strong caveat to pass only the entity name for bonds because trailing security-class words match nothing. This materially helps an agent construct correct values.

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 user phrasings and states the tool's job: resolving a spoken NAME to canonical identifiers that other tools require. It calls out 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which positions it against the sibling tools and distinguishes it from consumers of those IDs.

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 provides explicit trigger conditions ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and enumerates supported entity types with rich examples, so an agent knows when this tool applies. It does not name alternative tools or describe when not to use it, so it lacks the full when/when-not clarity needed for a 5.

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

All uored 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap: the three random-activity tools are near-variants of the same action, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve capability discovery. The detailed descriptions help agents choose correctly, but the boundaries are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entity, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, subscribe), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, deep_research), and noun compounds (polymarket_edge_tracker, entity_profile). Clusters are internally consistent, but there is no single pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels bloated. The random-activity trio and the ask_pipeworx stable/beta/grounded trio add redundancy, and several meta-tools could be consolidated. The broad domain scope justifies some of the size, but not all of it.

Completeness3/5

The data query, memory, and Polymarket research surfaces are well covered, but the subscription lifecycle is incomplete: list_subscriptions invites cancellation yet there is no cancel/unsubscribe tool, creating a dead end. Other areas have minor workarounds but no other show-stopping gaps.

Resources