Skip to main content
Glama

Data Michigan

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit `unresolved` reporting, source labelling, internal cascading across lookup endpoints, and deliberate non-assertion on ambiguous bond matches. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to trust and interpret results.

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 complex and the details are mostly load-bearing. It is front-loaded with example queries and the core 'use first' directive, though a few quoted phrasings are redundant and could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what is returned for each type, how unresolved identifiers appear, how candidates are surfaced for ambiguous instruments, and how source availability affects results. An agent has enough information to call the tool and interpret its output correctly in essentially all stated cases.

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%, yet the description still adds crucial parameter semantics: concrete examples ('AAPL', '0000320193', 'ozempic'), the instruction to pass only the entity name and never the full noun phrase, and the ISIN-to-LEI expansion for the `value` parameter. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 the exact action: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers other tools require. It also enumerates supported types (company, drug) and specific identifier outputs (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), distinguishing it from entity-profile or comparison tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving a clear trigger condition. It also clarifies what inputs are acceptable, how to pass issuer names exactly, and how ambiguous matches are handled, leaving little to inference.

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

All Data Michigan 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

There are multiple severe overlap clusters. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,578 tools, and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' — a direct ambiguity. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form another dense, hard-to-distinguish cluster, and entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/resolve_entity all have overlapping entity-investigation purposes. The long descriptions help but an agent would frequently misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant families are internally consistent (polymarket_* prefix, ask_pipeworx_* suffix family, and the verb-based remember/recall/forget), which aids navigation. However, the overall set mixes several conventions: single-word nouns (query, datasets, metadata, recall), verb_noun compounds (validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), and domain_noun names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). Readable, but there is no unified pattern across the server.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is clearly over the 25-threshold for heaviness, and several earn little distinct value: ask_pipeworx_beta is a live duplicate of ask_pipeworx, the five-algorithm Polymarket family could be consolidated, and meta/utility tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_trending, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) feel bolted on rather than essential. The breadth of the data domain justifies some size, but the redundancy and tangents push it into bloat.

Completeness3/5

Within its core sub-domains the surface is fairly complete: company research has resolve→profile/compare→recent_changes→validate_claim as a full lifecycle, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and memory has remember/recall/forget. The Polymarket workflow is especially thorough (detect→verify→fill-risk→track-decay). However, the server's stated identity ('Data Michigan') is barely served — the Michigan Open Data surface is only search/schema/query with no update or write path — and the scatter of unrelated tools (npm dependency scan, llms.txt generation) makes the overall purpose incoherent, so gaps are hard to evaluate.

Resources