Skip to main content
Glama

Eia

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: it discloses graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returns `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, explicitly lists unresolved identifiers, labels each identifier with its source, and explains cascaded internal lookups. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction.

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 and densely packed, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage trigger before diving into supported types. Most sentences earn their place given the tool's complexity, though the many parenthetical asides make it harder to skim quickly.

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 fully covers the key runtime behaviors an agent needs: what identifiers are returned, what happens on ambiguity, what happens on partial failure, how sources are labelled, and what value formats are accepted. For a multi-source resolver, this is complete enough to select and invoke 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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it details accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), warns to pass the issuer name only for bonds, explains ISIN-to-LEI resolution, and clarifies what happens for non-ticker instruments. This meaningfully extends the bare schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken names to official identifiers, supported types, and provides many concrete query examples. It is specific about the verb and resource but does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as entity_profile or compare_entities, though the 'other tools require as input' framing implies a distinct role.

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: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', and explains it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. However, it does not state when not to use this tool or name specific alternatives, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Eia 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly identical roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap with the router, and eia_series overlaps with the specialized eia_electricity/eia_ethanol/eia_natural_gas/eia_petroleum tools. The Polymarket opportunity scanners and the two AI-visibility checkers also blur together, making confident tool selection difficult despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb-first pattern (remember, recall, forget, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but there are notable deviations: eia_electricity and eia_ethanol are noun-first category names, recent_alerts and recent_changes are adjective-noun, and pipeworx_trending and polymarket_edges are not verb-driven. The eia_ and polymarket_ prefixes add some predictability, so the naming is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, this is well past the heavy threshold and feels like a kitchen-sink aggregation of several separate products rather than one focused server. Many tools could be consolidated: the five eia_* lookups, the multiple ask_pipeworx variants, and the several Polymarket scanners all serve close purposes. A 36-tool surface is too much for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

Within the major subdomains the set is quite complete: entity research has profile/compare/changes/resolve, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and Polymarket analysis has edge discovery, fill-risk, venue-spread, and persistence tracking. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update flow, no dedicated EIA coal/nuclear/renewables series beyond the generic eia_series fallback—but agents can work around them.

Resources