Skip to main content
Glama

Duffel

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: enrichment degrades gracefully when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguous matches return `figi_candidates` rather than asserting, unresolved identifiers are explicitly surfaced under `unresolved`, and each call cascades through several lookup endpoints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every clause earns its place: trigger examples, selection rule, supported types, source behaviors, and failure-mode caveats. It is front-loaded with user phrasings and the 'Use FIRST' directive, and it is appropriately sized for 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (canonical identifiers with source labels, `unresolved`, `figi_candidates`), how failures degrade, and the exact format expectations for inputs. Combined with the rich annotations, nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics for both parameters: it expands what each `type` value actually does, gives concrete accepted values for `value` (e.g., 'AAPL', '0000320193'), and warns against passing full noun phrases for bonds because trailing security-class words match nothing. This goes well beyond the schema.

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-resource pair: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It enumerates concrete trigger phrasings and distinguishes the two supported entity types, company and drug, and points to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' making its role distinct from sibling tools.

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 an explicit usage rule ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and details acceptable inputs, including ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name, and brand/generic drug names. It provides strong context, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling tools like entity_profile.

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

All Duffel 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
Disambiguation3/5

The set is organized into clusters (Pipeworx querying, Polymarket analysis, entity research, subscriptions, memory), but several tools within a cluster have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer questions, and polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage all surface trading opportunities. The very detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly, but the boundaries are not crisp enough for a 4.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are lowercase snake_case and there are consistent prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_, which aids predictability. However, the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent across the set (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, duffel_flight_search, ai_visibility_check), and some names are noun-heavy while others are verb-first. It is readable but not a uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the surface feels heavy for a coherent server; the rubric treats 25+ as too many. Several tools are wrappers or variants of the same underlying capability (ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edges vs bet_research, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence), so the count overstates real functional breadth.

Completeness3/5

The research/data side is very complete: querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, profiles, monitoring, memory, and feedback are all covered. However, the Duffel flight tool only searches and never books, so if the server is meant to be a flight agent there is a notable dead end; the broader toolkit also lacks direct CRUD for most resources beyond subscriptions.

Resources