Skip to main content
Glama

Ecosystems

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) already signal safety, but the description goes much further: it discloses internal cascading across multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, source labeling of identifiers, explicit handling of ambiguity (asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates), and the behavior of reporting unresolvable identifiers under `unresolved` rather than omitting. This is a model of behavioral transparency that far exceeds 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Although the description is long, it is information-dense with zero fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and usage trigger, then systematically covers edge cases (non-equity instruments, ambiguity, degradation) in a structured, scannable way. Every sentence adds value; the length is justified by the tool's complexity. It is well-organized with clear sections (supported types, caveats, fallback).

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 the tool has no output schema, the description does an excellent job of explaining return behavior: it states that resolvable identifiers are labelled by source, unresolvable ones are listed under `unresolved`, ambiguous matches return `figi_candidates`, and that the tool cascades internally. It also covers input variations and fallback behavior. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result, despite the absence of a formal output schema.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), yet the tool description adds substantial meaning: it explains the `type` enum in context (company vs drug), and for `value` it gives realistic examples, warns about bond issuer names, and clarifies that only the entity name should be passed (not the question's full noun phrase). It also explains how input types map to resolution behavior (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name). This is exactly the kind of enrichment that makes the parameter schema more actionable.

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 opens with a concrete job ('resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers') and immediately grounds it in everyday phrasings ('What's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…'). It explicitly names the two supported entity types (company, drug) and the identifier families it returns, and it distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it is the first stop when a name but no ID is available. It is unambiguous and specific about the resource and action.

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?

The description gives an explicit trigger ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and provides rich context on when the tool is appropriate, including non-equity instruments, bond issuer matching, and the correct input format (pass the entity name only, not the full noun phrase). It also notes that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, implying when it is worth a call. It covers both when and how to use it, and implicitly contrasts with sibling tools that consume identifiers.

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

All Ecosystems 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 tools form tight clusters that are easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in routing, and the six polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) all operate on prediction markets with overlapping names and purposes. While each has a distinct job, an agent will need to read descriptions very carefully to pick the right one, especially when many are similar.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed throughout the set: many tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are also noun_noun (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, bet_research), adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts), and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe). No consistent pattern emerges, making tool names harder to predict and remember.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this server is heavy and tries to serve many unrelated domains—data research, prediction markets, package registries, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. The prediction-markets cluster alone accounts for six highly specialized tools that could be consolidated. The scope feels bloated rather than focused, which will overwhelm agents exploring the toolset.

Completeness4/5

Each domain within the server has solid coverage: data lookups offer stable, beta, grounded, and deep-research variants; entity analysis has profile, compare, changes, and resolve; subscriptions support create/list/delete/alert-read; memory has set/get/list/delete. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct package search by keyword, no tool to update a subscription), but the major workflows are covered and there are no dead ends.

Resources