Skip to main content
Glama

Data360

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing important behavior: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully when LEI/FIGI enrichment fails, returns unresolved identifiers explicitly, and returns figi_candidates when a name is ambiguous. This enriches the agent's understanding of what the tool will actually do.

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 very long and dense, but almost every sentence carries necessary caveats and behavioral detail. It is front-loaded with relatable query examples, and the structured coverage of supported types helps navigation. It would benefit from cleaner paragraph breaks, but 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 the tool's complexity, two required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: supported types, valid input forms, ambiguity handling, resolution failures, graceful degradation, and even the internal cascade behavior. The description is nearly a complete usage manual for this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. However, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: ISINs resolve to legal entities, non-equity instruments without tickers do resolve, unresolved identifiers are surfaced, and the 'value' field semantics are clarified with warnings about full noun phrases. This earns a score above the baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: it resolves user-spoken names into canonical/official identifiers that other tools require. It gives concrete query examples and names the supported entity types, which distinguishes it from general lookup or data tools. The 'Use FIRST' directive also clearly separates it from sibling tools without opening schemas.

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,' which is clear guidance on when to invoke this tool. It provides strong contextual detail about supported types and inputs, but it does not name sibling alternatives such as entity_profile or compare_entities, nor does it state explicit exclusion cases.

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

All Data360 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools answer factual questions (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, deep_research), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to the stable router right now, creating genuine selection ambiguity. Most other clusters—memory, subscriptions, entity research, Polymarket—are reasonably distinct once the verbose descriptions are read.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case with recognizable family prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, data360_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), which aids grouping. The convention mixes verb-first names like resolve_entity with noun/prefix names like polymarket_edges, but it is still readable and predictable enough.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the heavy range, and the server bundles several unrelated concerns—universal data routing, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility marketing, and npm dependency scanning—into one surface. Many tools earn their place, but the aggregate is overloaded and likely to slow tool-selection.

Completeness4/5

The data-research side has strong coverage: discovery, universal routing, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent-changes tracking, and in-record search. Subscription lifecycle and memory are complete, and the prediction-market suite even covers fill-risk and edge persistence; only a few niche read/write operations are absent.

Resources