Skip to main content
Glama

Decodo

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?

The description goes well beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by disclosing real behavioral details: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, labels identifiers with their source, reports unresolved identifiers explicitly under `unresolved`, and degrades gracefully when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable while still returning EDGAR identifiers. This gives the agent accurate expectations for partial and multi-source results.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loading real user phrasings and the 'Use FIRST' directive. It could be more scannable — the first sentence is a long run-on with many parentheticals and em-dashes — but each section earns its place by covering supported types, inputs, edge cases, and degradation behavior.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates what each type returns (CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, ownership, FIGI, RxCUI, ingredient, brand, citation), how unresolved identifiers are represented, and what happens under partial source availability. For a multi-source resolution tool with this complexity, the description is exceptionally complete.

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 the schema already documents both parameters, the tool description adds substantial meaning: accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name; brand/generic drug name), the ISIN-to-LEI resolution path, the behavior for non-equity instruments without tickers, and the critical distinction between the issuer name and a full security noun phrase. This is valuable semantic guidance beyond the schema fields.

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 precise verb-resource pair: resolve a user-spoken NAME into canonical/official identifiers that other tools require. It enumerates concrete query phrasings, supported types (company, drug), and what identifiers are returned, distinguishing it clearly from sibling tools like entity_profile and compare_entities.

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 instruction 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' is an explicit, actionable trigger for when to select this tool. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but the described role as an identifier-resolution pre-step gives clear usage context.

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

All Decodo 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions; however, the family of ask_pipeworx tools (beta, grounded) and deep_research could cause selection ambiguity despite clear documentation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern; they mix imperatives, descriptive nouns, and domain prefixes. While overall readable, the lack of uniformity makes it harder to predict naming conventions.

Tool Count4/5

34 tools is on the higher side but still within reasonable range given the broad scope (data queries, prediction markets, scraping, subscriptions, memory). Each tool appears purposeful, though some consolidation (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants) could reduce count.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of tasks from data querying to prediction market analysis and entity management. Minor gaps might exist (e.g., no direct social media data), but the overall coverage is extensive and sufficient for the platform's purpose.

Resources