Skip to main content
Glama

Dostuff

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 declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial operational context: internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit unresolved fields, unambiguous figi_candidates with no assertion, and source-labelled identifiers. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

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 but generally front-loaded: purpose, trigger, then per-type detail. It is long, with nested parentheticals and an extended example list, yet almost every sentence carries operational weight. It is appropriately sized for a complex tool, but slightly verbose for a top score.

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 having no output schema, the description enumerates expected outputs per type (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, unresolved, figi_candidates) and covers edge cases such as ambiguous matches, non-US issuers, and enrichment unavailability. An agent has enough context to anticipate both success and failure modes.

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 already 100%, but the description adds far more: concrete input examples (AAPL, 0000320193, ozempic), accepted input forms per type, and a critical negative instruction about excluding trailing security-class words. This materially improves an agent's ability to construct correct values.

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 clearly specifies the verb ('resolve') and resource ('a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers'), and enumerates supported types with concrete examples. It also distances itself from generic lookups by stating it produces IDs other tools require as input, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' providing a clear trigger condition. It also gives per-type guidance and strong value-format rules such as passing the issuer exactly as printed and never the full noun phrase. It does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Dostuff 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

The set contains near-duplicate tools (ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') and a dense family of six polymarket_* tools whose boundaries are subtle, plus overlapping onboarding tools in discover_tools and suggest_questions. Detailed descriptions mitigate some confusion, but several tools are difficult to tell apart without reading their full text.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with consistent prefix families (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the overall structure is mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), adjective+noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and noun+noun domain tags (polymarket_edges, entity_profile) rather than a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy, carrying an experimental duplicate of ask_pipeworx and a six-tool polymarket family that could plausibly be consolidated. The breadth reflects several unrelated domains bundled into one server rather than a focused scope.

Completeness3/5

The data-research core (ask, grounded, deep_research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, entity resolution) and the prediction-market analysis suite are thoroughly covered, and memory plus subscription lifecycles are complete. However, the events domain the server is named for is thin (only events + metros), and the overall set lacks a single coherent purpose against which completeness can be cleanly judged.

Resources