Skip to main content
Glama

Data Mesa

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite rich annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: ambiguous names produce `figi_candidates` rather than asserting, unresolved identifiers are explicitly listed under `unresolved`, GLEIF/OpenFIGI enrichment "degrades gracefully," and ISINs map to legal entities. These traits directly change how an agent interprets results and are invisible in the annotations.

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 purpose and trigger phrases are front-loaded, and there is no filler, but the body is one enormous run-on paragraph with deep parenthetical nesting (e.g., the multi-clause FIGI/OpenFIGI aside) that is genuinely hard to scan. The content earns its place, but the structure is not appropriately sized for an agent to parse efficiently.

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 fully carries return-value semantics: per-type return fields (CIK/ticker/company_name from EDGAR, LEI plus ownership from GLEIF, FIGI from OpenFIGI; RxCUI/ingredient/brand from RxNorm), ambiguity behavior, unresolved-field handling, and failure modes like GLEIF/OpenFIGI unavailability. Nothing an agent needs to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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% and the schema's `value` description is already detailed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by introducing ISIN as an accepted company input (schema lists only ticker/CIK/name) and by explaining the FIGI name-matching caveat that trailing security-class words resolve to nothing — both essential for constructing valid values.

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 opens with concrete user phrasings ("What's the ticker for…", "find the CIK for…") and states the exact job: "resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input." It enumerates precise outputs (ticker, CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and the two supported types, so an agent can distinguish it from sibling tools like entity_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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," and frames its value as replacing "2-3 manual lookups." However, it never names a sibling tool as the alternative or states exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer when NOT to use it.

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

All Data Mesa 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket research tools, visibility checks), despite detailed descriptions. An agent may struggle to choose between closely related options.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case verb_noun patterns (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities) with noun-heavy compound names (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, deep_research) and single-word names (e.g., query, recall). No consistent convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is heavy for a research/data server. Many tools are variants of core capabilities (ask_pipeworx, polymarket edges), suggesting consolidation would improve usability.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad range: data research, prediction markets, entity profiles, monitoring. However, the abundance of specialized variants and gaps in unified workflows (e.g., needing separate tools for simple vs grounded queries) reduce completeness.

Resources