Skip to main content
Glama

Chainlist

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavior: graceful enrichment degradation, cascading across lookup endpoints, explicit `unresolved` reporting, ambiguity via `figi_candidates`, source labelling, and ISIN-to-LEI mapping. This is far beyond what the annotations convey.

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 main content is front-loaded with user phrasing and the core sentence is clear. The company branch is a long, run-on sequence of nested clauses that could be restructured, but nearly every detail earns its place given the tool's multi-source complexity.

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, the description still explains return behavior for both types: RxCUI/ingredient/brand/citation for drugs, and CIK/ticker/LEI/FIGI plus `unresolved` and `figi_candidates` for companies. It also covers non-US issuers, non-equity instruments, and degraded enrichment, so an agent has enough guidance to select and call it.

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%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema, especially for `value`: it warns to pass the issuer exactly as printed, never the full noun phrase, and explains that trailing security-class words fail in FIGI lookup. It also elaborates the `type` enum with source systems and identifier types.

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 multiple natural-language examples and then gives a crisp statement: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly conveys the resource (entities/identifiers), the action (resolve/look up), and how it differs from downstream tools that consume 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 explicitly instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and documents the two supported types and accepted input forms. It does not name sibling tools or give explicit when-not-to-use exclusions, but the intended placement in a lookup workflow is clear.

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

All Chainlist 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the multiple prediction market tools could be confusing without careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is high for a single server, covering chain data, Pipeworx research, and prediction markets. While well-organized, the breadth pushes the boundary of manageable scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major query operations for chains, entities, and data sources, with subscription and memory features. Minor gaps like lack of chain creation are acceptable given the server's focus on data retrieval.

Resources