Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cambridge

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive hints, the description adds substantial operational detail: cross-source identity spine, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is down, explicit `unresolved` reporting, `figi_candidates` disambiguation, and source-labelled identifiers. This goes far beyond what 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense but not concise; the opening sentence is a long, repetitive list of example queries, and the body is a stream-of-consciousness paragraph with a massive parenthetical. Every sentence carries value, but the structure could be split into scannable sections without losing content.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by covering key response behaviors: `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, `unresolved` for failed lookups, source labelling, and fallback behavior. It does not fully specify the JSON response shape, but the essential success and failure modes are documented clearly enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool.

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 enriches both parameters significantly. For `value`, it defines accepted input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name, brand/generic) and provides a critical anti-pattern: never pass the full noun phrase, only the issuer name. For `type`, it explains the return semantics of each enum value, including non-equity instrument resolution.

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 highly specific verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It also differentiates from siblings by commanding 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which makes the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided via 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and the note that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other intents, but the priority instruction plus clear scope is sufficient for an agent to route correctly.

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

All Data Cambridge 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most clusters have clear roles, and the detailed routing guidance separates ask_pipeworx from deep_research and grounded mode. However, three ask_pipeworx variants (one currently identical to stable), plus overlapping opportunity-discovery tools (polymarket_edges vs bet_research) and discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions), leave several boundary cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools group under readable prefixes (ask_pipeworx, cambridge_, polymarket_, pipeworx_) and are mostly snake_case. But the set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), verb_noun actions (resolve_entity, validate_claim), and noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_fill_risk), so no single convention predicts the full API.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' band, and the count is inflated by a kitchen-sink mix of data querying, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning. The server name 'Data Cambridge' suggests a narrow local-data scope, which makes the sprawl look even less appropriate.

Completeness3/5

Individual verticals are fairly complete: query/grounded/beta router levels, entity resolution/profile/compare/change, prediction-market discovery through fill-risk, and full memory and subscription CRUD. The major gap is discover_tools, which returns tools promoted as ready to call directly but no generic invocation tool is exposed, so the agent must route back through ask_pipeworx.

Resources