Skip to main content
Glama

Cactus

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 already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` identifiers, returning `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, resolving non-equity instruments, and cascading through multiple lookup endpoints. This meaningfully informs an agent about side effects and edge-case behavior.

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 long but highly structured with front-loaded examples, supported types, and behavioral notes. It is not redundant or padded; however, some explanatory asides (e.g., 'which is the correct answer to an issuer name that does not identify a single bond') add context but could be trimmed without losing critical 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?

For a complex two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it covers input formats, supported entity types, output contents (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), ambiguity handling, unresolved results, and availability degradation. An agent has sufficient information to select and call the tool correctly across edge cases.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, yet the description adds crucial semantics: ISIN as an accepted company input, the distinction between brand and generic drug names, and the warning to pass only the entity name (e.g., 'NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH' not 'NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds'). This goes well beyond the schema's baseline documentation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the verb (resolve) and resource (user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers), and enumerates supported entity types with concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools that overlap conceptually (e.g., 'resolve' or 'identify'), so the differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 a concrete negative example (never pass the full noun phrase for bond issuer names). It does not name competing sibling tools or state when to avoid this tool, but the guidance is strong and actionable.

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

All Cactus 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly differentiated roles, but several pairs blur boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and identify vs resolve both wrap the same NCI CACTUS service. The detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but an agent could easily mispick between the research and chemical lookup options.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, search_within) while many are noun-first or domain-prefixed (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). There is no single predictable pattern for a new tool's name, though subfamilies (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*) are internally consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, this is well above the typical well-scoped range and carries real selection overhead. The unusually broad purpose—a data router plus prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and several standalone utilities—partially justifies the count, but it still feels heavy and could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For its varied subdomains, coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and prediction markets span research, edge scanning, arbitrage, fill-risk, and edge telemetry. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct tool to fetch a specific citation URI by identifier, and the redundant stable/beta router pair—but there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources