Skip to main content
Glama

Data Mo

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, the behavior of returning figi_candidates when multiple matches exist, and explicit `unresolved` reporting. It also discloses internal cascading lookups, which is valuable for set expectations.

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 front-loaded with concrete usage examples and a clear use-first directive. Some parentheticals are dense and could be tightened, but the complexity of the tool—two entity types, multiple identifier sources, and ambiguity handling—justifies most of the length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 covers supported types, accepted values, failure modes, ambiguity behavior, and graceful degradation. It does not fully specify the exact response shape of the resolved identifiers, but it names key output concepts like figi_candidates and unresolved, which is sufficient for invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters and their types in detail, including examples and a warning about passing entity names only. The description adds meaningful extra semantics, such as accepting ISIN for company resolution and explaining the ISIN-to-LEI mapping, which is not present in the schema. This lifts it above the baseline 3.

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 also immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the tool as the entry point for name-to-ID conversion, which other tools presumably require as input.

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 an explicit when-to-use directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clearly enumerates supported types and input formats. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Data Mo 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool pairs have blurred boundaries: 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_beta', and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' serve overlapping routing purposes with minor differences in grounding or versioning, which can confuse an agent. Similarly, 'pipeworx_feedback' and the user feedback mechanism inside other tools lack clear tool-level distinction. Most other tools are distinct but the cluster of ask_pipeworx variants lowers overall clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun or prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'datasets' deviate from this pattern but remain readable. No chaotic mixing of conventions like camelCase and snake_case is present, so consistency is high overall.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the count is on the higher side for a single server, yet the tool set covers a broad domain of data access, analysis, and monitoring (data pipelines, prediction markets, compliance scans). Given the variety of distinct capabilities offered, 34 is borderline but not excessive enough to drop to a 2, as each tool addresses a concrete need.

Completeness5/5

The tool set offers a remarkably complete lifecycle for data operations: discovery (suggest_questions, discover_tools, datasets), entity resolution (resolve_entity, metadata), querying and retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, query), analysis and comparison (compare_entities, entity_profile, validate_claim), memory (remember, recall, forget), monitoring (subscribe, recent_alerts, polymarket_edge_tracker), and feedback (pipeworx_feedback). Niche tools like bet_research, scan_dependency, and generate_llms_txt further fill domain-specific gaps. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources