Skip to main content
Glama

Data Orlando

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?

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, open-world), the description discloses significant behavioral details: cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI enrichment is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` fields, ambiguous match behavior returning `figi_candidates`, and source labeling of identifiers. These traits are not apparent from annotations or schema and are highly valuable for correct invocation.

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 dense with high-value nuance, covering edge cases, failure modes, and supported entity types. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage directive. A few clauses could be tightened, but the length is largely justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by explaining key return behaviors: canonical identifiers, source labels, `unresolved` entries, `figi_candidates` for ambiguous matches, and graceful degradation. It also covers multiple input formats and entity types, making it complete enough for correct selection and invocation.

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%, but the description substantially enriches both parameters. For `value`, it explains accepted formats for company (ticker, CIK, or name) and drug, and warns against passing full noun phrases like 'revenue bonds', which would break FIGI matching. This goes well beyond the schema's basic field descriptions and prevents a common invocation error.

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 clearly states the tool's function: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers, with specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing that it produces the identifiers other tools require as input, and it enumerates supported entity types. The concrete examples of user queries make the purpose immediately actionable.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the instruction to use it first for name-to-ID lookups is strong enough context. It also notes that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, reinforcing its role.

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

All Data Orlando 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 clusters overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research all answer factual questions, and the six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) have subtle boundaries even with detailed descriptions. The descriptions are strong, but an agent must read carefully to reliably pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with recognizable family prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Minor deviations like single-noun names (datasets, metadata, query) and mixed lookup verbs (ask vs query vs search vs discover) keep it from a 5.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a single server, and the scope sprawls across general data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory management, subscription bookkeeping, AI visibility checks, and npm dependency scanning. The families are organized, but the count exceeds the 25-tool threshold and would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

For a data-research server, coverage is broad: universal routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, dataset search/query/metadata, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update operation and no full-catalog browse beyond search—but agents can work around them.

Resources