Skip to main content
Glama

Conspiracy Theory

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: cross-source identity resolution, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit reporting of unresolved identifiers, and the candidate-listing behavior for ambiguous matches. It also clarifies that non-equity instruments without tickers still resolve, which is non-obvious from the 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 the core use case and the 'Use FIRST' directive. While it is long, nearly every sentence adds meaningful detail; a more structured bullet layout might improve readability, but the content earns its place for a tool with this 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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains return behavior well: it mentions figi_candidates, the unresolved list, source labels, and the RxNorm citation format. Degradation behavior and failure handling are also covered, making it complete for an agent to call 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?

Although the schema already has 100% parameter coverage, the description adds critical semantic detail, such as passing the issuer name exactly as printed and avoiding trailing security-class words. It also gives concrete examples for both type and value, which materially reduces the chance of incorrect invocation.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: resolving user-spoken entity names to canonical/official identifiers, with concrete examples like 'ticker for', 'CIK for', and 'LEI for.' It distinguishes the resource and action precisely and supports two entity types, making its scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives an explicit directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', which is strong usage guidance. It also specifies acceptable input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name) and clarifies when the tool returns candidates rather than asserting a single result, covering when-to-use and expected behavior in ambiguous cases.

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

All Conspiracy Theory 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve route/discover/research data needs, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly noted as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Polymarket tools also blur together (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. An agent would frequently need to read long descriptions just to pick between near-equivalent entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is mostly snake_case and generally readable, with clear verbs like list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, and validate_claim. However, conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed nouns appear (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), one tool reverses the pattern (conspiracy_theory_generate vs generate_llms_txt), and the ask_pipeworx family follows its own scheme. The inconsistency is noticeable but does not make the names unreadable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the apparent scope is a scattered mix of general data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm dependency checks, and conspiracy-theory generation. Many tools are meta-routers or aggregators that could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket family, the entity-research tools). The count feels like a growing internal toolkit rather than a deliberately scoped server.

Completeness2/5

The tools cover some complete sub-domains — memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and data lookup has multiple verification and research paths. But the server's nominal 'Conspiracy Theory' purpose is essentially one generation tool with no save, share, history, or validation workflow, while the bulk of the surface is unrelated general-purpose data tooling. The overall offering is broad but not coherently complete for any clear stated purpose.

Resources