Skip to main content
Glama

Data Fcc

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."New value: +"For 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial behavioral context: internal cascading across lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, and the `figi_candidates` behavior when a name matches multiple instruments. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 front-loaded with example queries and the 'Use FIRST' directive, then organized around SUPPORTED TYPES. It is verbose and contains some nested parenthetical detail, but most sentences earn their place by conveying edge cases and source-specific behavior. Slight trimming of the repeated examples would make it tighter.

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 thoroughly covers what the agent needs: supported types, input formats, per-source identifier outputs (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), the `unresolved` field, multi-match handling, and failure degradation. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking this tool correctly seems missing.

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 important semantic guidance beyond the schema: the distinction between brand vs generic names, the specific warning to pass the issuer name exactly as printed and never include trailing security-class words, and the detailed cross-source behavior of the `type` parameter. This materially improves correct 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It immediately distinguishes itself from entity/profile or search tools by focusing on ID resolution, and the many natural-language examples ('what's the CIK for...', 'look up the ID for...') make the tool's role 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?

The description gives a clear trigger condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, which clarifies why an agent should prefer it for ID extraction. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when to choose those instead, so exclusions are missing.

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

All Data Fcc 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

Several tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all query the same underlying data catalog in similar ways. The descriptions provide detailed usage guidance, but the query family and the five-strong Polymarket family still create real misselection risk. Memory, subscription, and FCC tools are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case and mostly follow recognizable verb_noun or prefixed-family patterns (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). The main deviations are bare one-word names like datasets, metadata, query, remember, and forget, plus a few noun-first names like entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage. Overall the naming is readable and predictable, with only minor inconsistencies.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this server is well past the 25+ threshold and feels overloaded. It bundles a general-purpose data-query gateway, FCC open-data access, Polymarket analytics, AI-visibility scanning, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, and llms.txt generation into one surface. Each functional area is small on its own, but the combined set would be more coherent split into several focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The core data lifecycle is well covered: discovery (suggest_questions, discover_tools), single queries (ask_pipeworx), grounded/evidence-backed answers, deep multi-source research, entity resolution/profiling/comparison, change feeds, and fact-checking all exist. FCC open data has search, schema, and query tools, and subscriptions/memory have full CRUD-style coverage. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no direct pipeworx:// URI fetch tool, no enumeration of all discoverable data sources), but they do not block typical workflows.

Resources