Skip to main content
Glama

Ecos Kr

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, open-world, and idempotent hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, returns `figi_candidates` when ambiguous, states unresolved identifiers explicitly rather than omitting them, and degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable. 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 front-loaded with usage intent and query examples, and nearly every sentence adds value. It is dense and long, with a very large parenthetical block, so it is not maximally concise, but the complexity of the tool justifies most of the detail.

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 explains key return behaviors, including source labelling, explicit unresolved identifiers, and ambiguity handling via `figi_candidates`. It covers supported types, accepted value formats, fallback behavior, and caveats, so an agent has enough to select and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: detailed value examples per type, the difference between ticker/CIK/ISIN/name inputs, and a concrete warning not to pass full noun phrases for bonds. This materially reduces the chance of malformed invocations.

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 names a specific verb and resource: resolving user-spoken names into canonical/official identifiers, illustrated with concrete query examples. It clearly positions the tool relative to siblings by noting these IDs are what other tools require as input, and it enumerates supported entity types (company, drug) rather than remaining generic.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' plus query-phrase examples and supported input forms. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives to avoid or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Ecos Kr 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical today, and the polymarket_edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/kalshi_spread family plus entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities cover adjacent jobs. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate them with careful reading, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set has recognizable prefixes like ecos_, ask_pipeworx, and polymarket_, but it also mixes verb_noun names (validate_claim, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), reversed/gerund forms (bet_research, pipeworx_trending), and special tokens (generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable on a per-family basis but not predictable across the full surface.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range for a coherent tool set, and several entries are near-duplicates or wrappers: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The prediction-market and company-research families could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

For the server's broad scope, lifecycle coverage is strong: ECOS has search/items/get/indicators, subscriptions have create/list/read/cancel, memory has save/read/delete, and the data-research surface covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, profiles, changes, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI or execute a single catalog tool directly, but these are workable.

Resources