Skip to main content
Glama

Data Paris

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it aggregates SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, and RxNorm sources; returns different identifier sets per type; and degrades gracefully when enrichment sources are unavailable. It also notes internal cascading lookups, which helps an agent 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with trigger phrases, but it is a long run-on with nested parentheticals and some redundancy with the schema (e.g., accepted inputs repeated). It earns most of its length, but would benefit from tighter structure.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return contents, and it does so for both types, including fallback behavior and coverage of non-US issuers. Minor gaps remain around ambiguous-name behavior and exact response shape, but an agent has enough to select and call the tool correctly.

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 already documents both parameters precisely, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value on top by explicitly including ISIN as an accepted company input, giving the CH0038863350 example, and clarifying non-equity securities, which are not fully represented in 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 opens with concrete user phrasings and states the core verb-resource pair: resolve a name to canonical/official identifiers. It distinguishes itself from likely siblings by listing supported types (company, drug) and the identifiers returned, so an agent can tell it apart from related tools like entity_profile or validate_claim.

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?

'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' is an explicit when-to-use directive, and the trigger phrases make the matching intent obvious. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the guidance is clear enough for routing.

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

All Data Paris 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function or data domain, from prediction markets (bet_research, polymarket_*) to company research (entity_profile, compare_entities) to data queries (query, dataset_info). No two tools have overlapping purposes; meta-tools like ask_pipeworx and deep_research are clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (e.g., search_datasets, validate_claim, remember). No mix of conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb choices.

Tool Count4/5

At 33 tools, the server covers a broad range of capabilities (data retrieval, AI visibility, prediction markets, company profiles, subscriptions, etc.). While slightly above the ideal range, the count is justified by the breadth of functionality and no tool feels redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for data discovery, retrieval, and analysis across multiple domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, Paris Open Data, prediction markets, etc.). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for Paris Open Data), but the primary focus on reading and analysis is well-served.

Resources