Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sf

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses rich behavioral details: internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, explicit unresolved fields, and source labeling for every identifier. This goes well beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 purpose and usage examples, and the detail is valuable for a complex resolver. However, the long company-type parenthetical is dense and somewhat hard to scan; it is appropriate in content but could be structured more cleanly.

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, the description compensates thoroughly: it explains return behavior, ambiguity outcomes, failure handling, source provenance, coverage limits, and even input shape caveats. For a two-parameter tool, nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and call it correctly.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial parameter-level meaning: accepted ticker/CIK/ISIN/name forms, the critical instruction to pass only the entity name, and the bond-specific pitfall about trailing security-class words. This materially improves correct invocation beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers. It clearly distinguishes its role from siblings by noting these identifiers are what other tools require as input, and it enumerates supported entity types with concrete example queries.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies supported types and input forms. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool in favor of another, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Data Sf 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 tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions to similar data sources, while search_within also overlaps with grounded answering. bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction markets. Agents must read descriptions carefully to pick the right variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Some are single nouns (recent_alerts, recent_changes, key_alerts), a few break the convention (ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, remember, forget). Overall mostly consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a high count for a general-purpose data server, and several seem redundant: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edge_tracker vs polymarket_arbitrage, and the numerous meta-tools create overhead. A focused dataset server would be better with 10–15 tools.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers many domains well: SEC filings, economics/FRED, prediction markets, news, clinical trials, San Francisco open data, npm dependencies. Obvious gaps include no financial statement form filings beyond 8-K/10-K, no calendar/event scheduling, and no update-else path for several key objects (but memory tools fill that gap). Attribution currently ships in almost all requested tools, providing evidence.

Resources