Skip to main content
Glama

Celestrak

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behaviors: unresolved identifiers are explicitly stated, ambiguous matches yield figi_candidates rather than guesses, LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully if upstream sources are unavailable, and each identifier is labeled with its source. This gives the agent substantial behavioral context.

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 long, but it is front-loaded with user-facing examples and the primary purpose before diving into supported types. A few clauses are verbose, such as the parenthetical about the correct answer to non-identifying issuer names, yet nearly every sentence conveys operational detail for a genuinely complex tool.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by naming what is returned for each type (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and how failure or ambiguity is represented through unresolved and figi_candidates. It stops short of documenting the exact response structure or error formats, so a small completeness gap remains for a tool this rich.

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 documents both parameters, the description adds high-value guidance: exact ticker/CIK/name formats, the distinction between issuer name and security-class noun phrases, the ISIN-to-LEI mapping, and specific drug examples. This materially improves an agent's chance of invoking the tool with 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 natural-language queries and then states the core verb+resource: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers required by other tools. Supported types are enumerated with examples, and the tool is positioned as the first stop when a name needs an ID, differentiating it from siblings like search_by_name and entity_profile.

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 explicitly instructs to use this tool first whenever you have a name but need an ID, which is a clear when-to-use signal. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of the strongest guidance.

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

All Celestrak 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

The tool set mixes several distinct domains (satellite orbital data, Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions), but within the Pipeworx umbrella there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,756 tools. An agent could easily misselect between them, especially since ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_subscriptions, create... none, but compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget), yet the naming is inconsistent across the set: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, get_satellite, get_group, recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile, and deep_research do not share a uniform convention. CamelCase appears in polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc. while most others are snake_case, and the satellite tools (get_satellite, get_group, search_by_name) form a distinct sub-pattern that clashes with the Pipeworx meta-tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the heavy side, and the effective surface is bloated: there are three variants of ask_pipeworx, four polymarket_* tools, three satellite-specific tools that are unrelated to the server's apparent core purpose, and several meta/utility tools (remember, recall, forget, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated or are only tangentially related. The count itself is not extreme, but the scope is muddled: the server claims the name Celestrak (satellite tracking) while the overwhelming majority of tools are for Pipeworx data access and prediction markets, making the tool count feel inappropriate for either purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the Pipeworx data-access domain, the tool set is quite thorough: natural-language routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, entity comparison, claim verification, semantic search, and tool discovery are all present. However, there are notable gaps: the subscription lifecycle lacks an update/resume mechanism, and the satellite domain (the server's namesake) is severely incomplete — only three lookup tools with no live tracking, no group listing beyond a handful of groups, and no clear lifecycle CRUD. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are minimal but complete for their narrow scope.

Resources