Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nola

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description richly discloses behavior: cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit listing of unresolved identifiers, and returning figi_candidates on ambiguous matches. These details materially help an agent predict what the tool will do.

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 user-intent examples and the primary usage rule, which is good. It is long and dense, but the complexity of the tool justifies most of the detail; some phrases are slightly redundant, such as explaining at length why ambiguous bond names yield candidates.

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 present, the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does: identifiers returned for each type, labels, unresolved fields, figi_candidates on ambiguity, and degradation behavior. For an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool, nothing critical is 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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds significant semantics: accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), the important warning to pass only the entity name and not trailing security-class words, and the exact meaning of the type parameter. This goes well beyond the baseline set by 100% schema coverage.

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, then states a specific action: resolving a spoken name to canonical/official identifiers. It also explains that these identifiers are what other tools require as input, which sets it apart from siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities without needing to name them.

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 decision rule: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID." It also implies precedence over manual lookups by saying it replaces 2-3 lookups, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools.

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

All Data Nola 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 boundaries blur: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping query/research entry points, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx by the server's own description. entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also cover overlapping company-investigation territory, forcing agents to parse long descriptions to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a predictable verb-object or domain-prefix pattern (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, nola_*, subscribe/unsubscribe). Minor deviations like nola_datasets, polymarket_edges, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first rather than verb-first, but the overall convention is still readable and coherent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 15-25 heavy range and includes multiple near-duplicate query modes, four closely related Polymarket analysis tools, and memory/subscription utilities layered on top of the core data-access surface. While the server appears to be a broad data platform, the count is bloated for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably broad: discovery, single-answer lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, NOLA querying, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered with few obvious dead ends. The main gap is that the NOLA-specific surface is thin relative to the server name, though nola_query plus nola_datasets provides a flexible escape hatch.

Resources