Skip to main content
Glama

Could Have Been Email

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?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial useful behavioral context: internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit candidate behavior on ambiguous matches, and a stated unresolved field. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and dense, but it is front-loaded with trigger phrases and a clear 'Use FIRST' directive. Most sentences carry real information, though the long parenthetical inside the company type could be restructured for easier scanning.

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 sufficiently explains what will be returned: canonical IDs per type, labeled sources, an unresolved field, and figi_candidates for ambiguous bonds. It also covers inputs, failure modes, and graceful degradation, making the tool effectively callable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description still adds value beyond the schema: it expands accepted inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), clarifies that non-equity instruments resolve, and reinforces the warning to pass only the entity name. This is meaningful but not exhaustive compensation since the schema is already strong.

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 states a precise verb and resource: it resolves a user-spoken NAME into canonical identifiers. The trigger examples and 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' make the purpose unmistakable and differentiate it from sibling tools that profile or compare entities.

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 tells the agent to use this tool first when a name needs to become an ID and gives concrete supported types and input forms. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as entity_profile or compare_entities, but the 'name-to-ID' framing and supported-type guidance provide clear context.

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

All Could Have Been Email 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

Several tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and the six polymarket tools heavily overlap in surfacing prediction-market edge. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily misselect between bet_research and polymarket_edges or between discover_tools and suggest_questions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some are compound noun phrases (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). ask_pipeworx also breaks the separator convention compared to ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and feels like a platform bundle rather than a focused server. It spans data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, AI visibility, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, which is far more surface area than one coherent server should present.

Completeness4/5

For the core data-research and prediction-market domains, coverage is strong: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage, fill-risk, subscriptions, and memory are all present with no major dead ends. The gaps are mostly the single-purpose oddballs (could_have_been_email_analyze, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't connect to the rest of the surface.

Resources