Skip to main content
Glama

Data Edmonton

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?

Annotations declare read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial detail beyond those hints: enrichment degrades gracefully, ambiguous names return `figi_candidates`, unresolved identifiers are listed under `unresolved` rather than omitted, and each call cascades through multiple lookup endpoints. 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 dense and well-structured, with purpose, usage, and supported types all front-loaded. Some parenthetical chains are verbose, but nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information for an agent, making the length justified for a two-type multi-source resolver.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully covers expected return behavior: canonical identifiers, source labeling, `unresolved` handling, `figi_candidates` ambiguity behavior, and graceful degradation. It also clarifies input formats and edge cases for both supported types, so an agent has enough to invoke the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant parameter-level value: it gives concrete examples (ticker, CIK, ISIN, drug brand/generic names), details acceptable input forms, and warns specifically about bond issuer names ('never the question's full noun phrase') to avoid lookup failures. This exceeds what the schema alone provides.

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 the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by instructing 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' making clear it is the identity-resolution entry point rather than a profile or comparison tool.

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') and provides numerous example phrasings that trigger this tool. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, but the context that other tools require these IDs as input implies the boundary clearly.

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

All Data Edmonton 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

Several tool clusters have significantly overlapping scopes. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all return grounded answers with different levels of verification. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also has fuzzy boundaries that could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, scan_dependency). A few nouns like entity_profile and recent_alerts deviate slightly, and the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) are single-word verbs, but the overall style is consistent and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server whose name suggests a focused Edmonton open-data scope; only 3 tools actually relate to Edmonton data. Even as a general data platform, the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold and includes many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback) that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For the Edmonton open-data subset, search, query, and recent-records cover the core lifecycle well. The broader Pipeworx toolset is comprehensive (entity profiles, comparisons, claims, subscriptions, memory), with only minor gaps like a direct catalog-browsing tool for the 1393 sources.

Resources