Skip to main content
Glama

Duration

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: it cascades through multiple endpoints, degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returns ambiguity via `figi_candidates` instead of guessing, and explicitly exposes unresolvable identifiers under `unresolved`. These details go beyond annotations and are critical for agent expectations.

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 but densely packed with necessary details. It is front-loaded with illustrative examples and the 'Use FIRST' directive, then systematically covers supported types, edge cases, and degradation behavior. While not concise, every section earns its place given the tool's complexity. One minor deduction for length and some redundancy in the company-type narrative.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return semantics, and it does: it mentions `figi_candidates`, `unresolved`, source labelling, and the graceful degradation behavior. It covers all input types, edge cases (non-US issuers, bonds without tickers), and clearly states what the tool will not do. An agent would be fully equipped to call this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's terse parameter descriptions. For `type`, it explains the two enum values and their behavior. For `value`, it gives concrete input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name) and warns about the exact phrasing for bonds. This is exactly the kind of guidance an agent needs to construct correct calls.

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 canonical identifiers. It is explicit about what it does and what it does not (asserting nothing on ambiguous bond matches). It also names the usage context (inputs for other tools) and distinguishes itself from siblings by enumerating supported entities and the specific sources involved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', which is a clear when-to-use directive. It also provides detailed usage examples for the `value` parameter, including a caution against including security-class words for bonds. While it does not name alternative tools, the 'FIRST' directive and the coverage of edge cases make the usage guidance strong.

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

All Duration 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes several overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve very similar purposes with only subtle differences in behavior (beta/grounded). Additionally, deep_research and validate_claim partially overlap with these. The prediction market tools are numerous but distinct, and memory/duration tools are clear. Overall, an agent would face some confusion when selecting among the ask_pipeworx variants.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use consistent underscore_case with descriptive verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim). A few memory and subscription tools are single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe, unsubscribe), which deviates slightly but remains readable. Overall naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier side. The server covers a broad scope (data queries, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, utilities, subscriptions), which justifies many tools, but some feel redundant (e.g., three variants of ask_pipeworx, multiple polymarket edge tools). A more focused set (around 20-25) would be more typical for coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is extensive, covering factual Q&A via a universal router, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and utilities. The meta-tool ask_pipeworx provides access to thousands of structured sources, so most data needs are addressable. Minor gaps include no direct tool for specific SEC filing retrieval beyond the meta-router, but this is covered indirectly.

Resources