Skip to main content
Glama

Data Santaclara

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the idempotent/readonly annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral details: ambiguity handling ('returns `figi_candidates` to pick from'), explicit unresolved identifiers, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and internal cascading lookups. It adds far more than the annotations alone and contains no contradiction.

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 purpose and examples, and every section adds operational value. It remains dense and could benefit from structured bullet points, but the length is justified given the tool's multi-entity complexity.

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 does a good job explaining return behaviors for ambiguity and unresolved identifiers, plus the drug output format. However, it does not fully specify the exact output object shape for a successful company resolution (e.g., key names, nesting), leaving some residual uncertainty for a complex tool.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantic nuance: for company values it distinguishes ticker, CIK, ISIN, and name; for drug values it covers brand/generic names. Most importantly, it warns that bond issuers must be passed 'exactly as printed' and not the full noun phrase, with a reason. This materially improves correct invocation 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It provides concrete query examples and explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which clearly positions it against sibling tools that consume identifiers.

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 an explicit when: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also details supported types and input formats. However, it does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use it, so it stops short of the fully explicit exclusions that would earn a 5.

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

All Data Santaclara 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same 5,798-tool catalog and can return similar evidence-backed answers. Additionally, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all circle prediction-market edge detection, creating boundary ambiguity despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, compare_entities, resolve_entity), and consistent snake_case is used throughout. However, some names are vague and unclear (query, metadata, recall, forget, datasets), and the ask_pipeworx family is not clearly versioned in naming.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server that is conceptually a data-access gateway plus a few meta utilities. The count is inflated by multiple near-duplicate research modes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and an extensive prediction-market subfamily that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its main domains well: entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, grounded Q&A, and data discovery all exist. Minor gaps include no obvious tool for general web search or full-text legal records, and the subscription/alert system lacks an update-subscription tool, but core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources