Skip to main content
Glama

Data Usdot

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes far beyond them by disclosing internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit `unresolved` reporting, and candidate-list behavior for ambiguous matches. It also explains non-equity instrument resolution and ISIN-to-LEI mapping, giving the agent a rich behavioral model.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is lengthy but every sentence earns its place: trigger examples, usage directive, type-specific behavior, failure semantics, and parameter warnings are all relevant. It is well-structured with clear sections and front-loaded usage guidance, so the length is 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 there is no output schema and the tool has substantial behavioral complexity, the description is remarkably complete. It covers input formats, edge cases (ambiguous FIGI matches), failure degradation, source attribution, and what appears in `unresolved`. An agent has enough information to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description materially enriches parameter meaning. It explains accepted input forms for `value` (ticker, CIK, ISIN, names), gives concrete examples, and warns against passing full noun phrases like 'revenue bonds' by clarifying the FIGI matching behavior. This is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 action: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers required by other tools. It gives varied trigger phrases and enumerates supported types (company, drug), making the tool's scope unmistakable. It clearly differentiates this from an entity-profiling or comparison tool, even without naming siblings explicitly.

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 use condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also notes that one call replaces multiple manual lookups. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or stating when not to use the tool, so it misses the top bar.

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

All Data Usdot 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 tools have overlapping or near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are one base query flow with different flavors, while entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all overlap on company information. The Polymarket family and the discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_trending) also create boundary confusion despite good descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is consistently snake_case and mostly readable, but it mixes verb_noun tools (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, datasets, metadata). The ask_pipeworx variants use a beta/grounded suffix pattern that is not applied uniformly across the other tool families.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and feels like several servers merged into one: US DOT catalog access, a generic Pipeworx data router, prediction-market tools, memory/subscription management, AI-visibility checks, and meta/discovery utilities. Many tools could be consolidated (the three ask_pipeworx variants, the five Polymarket tools, and the discovery trio).

Completeness3/5

The core data lifecycle is broadly covered: catalog search, metadata, querying, natural-language lookup, grounded verification, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparison, research, subscriptions, and memory all have working paths. However, the server is named around US DOT data but only datasets/metadata/query are DOT-specific, and the rest is an unrelated general-purpose data and prediction-market toolkit, leaving the stated domain feeling incomplete.

Resources