Skip to main content
Glama

Doaj

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?

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and the description goes far beyond them by disclosing ambiguity behavior (returns figi_candidates and asserts nothing), explicit unresolved identifiers, graceful LEI/FIGI degradation, source attribution for every identifier, and internal cascading lookups. There is 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 length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need to cover two entity types, multiple identifier sources, ambiguity, and degradation behavior. It is well-organized with clear labels ('USE FIRST', 'SUPPORTED TYPES') and front-loads the core purpose before detailing edge cases, so the structure helps rather than hinders.

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, the description compensates thoroughly by explaining what the tool returns: resolved identifiers, source labels, unresolved fields, figi_candidates in ambiguous cases, and drug RxCUI citations. It also covers failure modes and input constraints, leaving little that an agent needs to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, the description adds critical meaning: value must be the entity name only, not the full noun phrase, with concrete examples like 'NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH' versus trailing security-class words. It also documents accepted input forms beyond the schema (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name) and explains the drug output. This materially improves a caller's chance of passing correct parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') with a clear resource (user-spoken names to canonical identifiers) and explicitly states that these identifiers are what other tools require as input. It enumerates support types (company, drug) and example user phrasings, making the tool's scope unmistakable even among many siblings.

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 invocation guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains the tool replaces 2-3 manual lookups and enumerates accepted input types. It does not name sibling alternatives like entity_profile or compare_entities, but the usage context is clear enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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

All Doaj 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have overlapping purposes: the three ask_pipeworx variants are nearly identical, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for opportunities, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence create confusion. Although descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily misselect among these.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun (get_article, search_journals, resolve_entity), but there are brand-prefixed names (ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback) and noun-phrase tools (entity_profile, bet_research) that break the pattern. The three ask_pipeworx variants are consistently named but confusable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a coherent server, especially one where many tools are meta-routes (ask_pipeworx, deep_research) that could consolidate functionality. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'heavy' and includes several one-off tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't fit the dominant data-access theme.

Completeness3/5

The DOAJ subset is complete for read-only search and retrieval, but the server lacks a clear domain: it mixes DOAJ, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. For the broader Pipeworx platform, there are some dead ends (e.g., no subscription editing, no raw historical market data, no batch tools), and the non-DOAJ tools create confusion about what the server is actually for.

Resources