Skip to main content
Glama

Chaos Index

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?

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: multi-endpoint cascading, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, unresolved identifiers listed explicitly, ambiguity returning figi_candidates rather than asserting, and source-labeling of identifiers. These add agent-relevant context that the annotations alone do not 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 description is long but front-loaded with trigger phrases and purpose, and the density is justified by the tool's multi-source complexity. Some parenthetical asides are verbose but each adds behavioral or parameter value; no filler sentences are evident.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately documents return shapes: CIK/ticker/company_name, LEI with ownership, FIGI candidates, RxCUI/brand/ingredient, and unresolved identifiers. Combined with rich annotations and input rules, an agent has enough to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds essential semantics for value: pass the entity name only, never the full noun phrase, with a concrete bond example and trailing security-class word pitfall. It also clarifies accepted input forms (ISIN, ticker, CIK, brand/generic) beyond the schema's examples.

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 trigger phrases and states a clear verb-resource pair: resolve user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers. It enumerates supported entity types (company/drug), accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), and the identifiers returned, making it distinct from sibling profile or comparison tools.

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 agents to use this tool first whenever they have a name but need an ID, and provides trigger examples like 'what's the ticker for' and 'who owns X'. It does not list explicit exclusions or name alternative tools such as entity_profile for when a profile or overview is wanted, so the when-not guidance is only implicit.

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

All Chaos Index 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
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains multiple near-duplicate entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all claim to be the 'call this first' tool. Also, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and the five polymarket_* tools create boundaries an agent could easily mischoose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, validate_claim, unsubscribe, search_within). Minor deviations exist — chaos_index_calculate puts the verb last, entity_profile is noun-only, and the pipeworx_ prefix is applied inconsistently (pipeworx_trending vs ask_pipeworx) — but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is too many for a coherent single-purpose server; the set spans data routing, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. It reads as a bundled suite of unrelated utilities rather than a focused tool surface.

Completeness3/5

Subdomains are individually fairly complete: subscription CRUD, memory CRUD, and the prediction-market workflow (research, edges, arbitrage, fill risk, tracking) are all covered. However, the overall domain is incoherent, and gaps exist such as no update-subscription operation and no way to modify an existing memory beyond overwriting via remember.

Resources