Skip to main content
Glama

Data Delaware

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 annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description discloses rich behavior: internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is down, multi-match behavior returning figi_candidates rather than asserting, explicit unresolved identifier reporting, and labelling of identifier sources. 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, but the tool is genuinely complex with multiple entity types, sources, and edge cases, and much of the length earns its place. It is front-loaded with user-query examples and supported types. Some phrases are redundant or explanatory, but overall the density is justified.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers input schemas, supported entity types, data sources, failure modes, multi-match behavior, unresolved identifiers, and graceful degradation. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly and interpret likely outcomes.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial parameter meaning: ticker/CIK/ISIN/name for company, brand/generic for drug, the ISIN-to-LEI resolution path, and a precise warning to pass only the entity name, not the full noun phrase. This goes well beyond the schema's short property descriptions.

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 specific verb and resource: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as the input-resolution layer ("Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID") and enumerates concrete supported types (company, drug) and examples.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID." It also gives positive examples of user phrasings and input-format warnings. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings like entity_profile, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Data Delaware 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route queries to the same data sources with only subtle differences. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets, making it hard for an agent to pick the right one without deep reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a mix of patterns: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are just nouns (datasets, metadata). The ask_pipeworx family has consistent prefixes but suffixes vary. Overall readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a coherent server. The server tries to be a Swiss Army knife covering data lookup, prediction markets, Delaware open data, memory, subscriptions, and misc tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. Many tools feel tacked on, and the count makes it unwieldy for an agent to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The server covers multiple domains thoroughly (data query via Pipeworx variants, prediction markets with arbitrage and edges, Delaware open data, memory, subscriptions). However, there are gaps: no tool for managing custom pipelines or for updating data. For the broad scope, it is decent but not fully comprehensive.

Resources