Skip to main content
Glama

Diff

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint already covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: graceful degradation if GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` output instead of omission, labeled identifier sources, and candidate-list behavior for ambiguous matches. It also mentions internal cascading across lookup endpoints. No contradiction with annotations.

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 and dense, but the tool is complex and nearly every clause carries operational value. It front-loads the main purpose and usage guidance before diving into details. The heavy nesting of parentheticals makes it harder to scan, but the length is largely justified by the breadth of entity types and edge cases covered.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs to call it correctly: supported types, accepted input forms, return components, ambiguity behavior, unresolved handling, source attribution, and failure degradation. Sibling context and annotations complement rather than fill a gap; the description alone gives a complete operational picture.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema. It clarifies the exact form of `value` with examples (AAPL, CIK, ISIN, brand names), warns against passing full noun phrases, and gives bond-specific guidance about issuer names. This meaningfully reduces parameter misuse risk.

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 opens with concrete user-phrase examples and a crisp statement: "resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input." It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning as the entity-lookup gateway and explicitly listing supported types (company, drug) with the identifier sources. The purpose is unmistakable and not a restatement of the title.

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 strong when-to-use guidance: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," plus examples of when a name is ambiguous and what the tool returns. It also explains when a bond issuer name should be passed exactly rather than the full noun phrase. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool, so it misses the full exclusion guidance needed for a 5.

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

All Diff 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 clusters of tools are hard to tell apart: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping query paths, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research cover heavily overlapping prediction-market analysis. Some pairs are nearly identical in purpose, like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the descriptions must be read closely to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the naming style is highly inconsistent across the set: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts), and some use a vendor prefix without a clear verb (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker). The pattern shifts between domain-specific prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and generic verbs with no predictable rule.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is too many for a cohesive server, especially when the surface sprawls across unrelated domains: data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, AI visibility checks, and llms.txt generation. Many tools could be consolidated (the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket family, the entity-comparison family), which would make the count feel more justified.

Completeness4/5

Within its apparent purpose as a broad data-and-research assistant, the tool set is fairly complete: it covers entity resolution, lookup, grounded verification, deep research, comparisons, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, discovery, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a record by its pipeworx:// citation URI (search_within implies fetching happens elsewhere) and no evident update operation for stored memories beyond save/delete.

Resources