Skip to main content
Glama

Elife

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: graceful degradation ('LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully'), internal cascading lookups, ambiguity handling via 'figi_candidates', and explicit unresolved identifiers under 'unresolved.' These operational traits are not captured by the read-only/idempotent 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 the core purpose and usage rule, but the opening paragraph becomes a long, parenthetical-heavy block that is harder to scan. The detail is mostly earned, but structural tightening would improve readability.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains success values (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), ambiguous results ('figi_candidates'), explicit failures ('unresolved'), and degradation behavior. An agent has enough information to select and call 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?

The schema already documents both parameters well, and the description adds actionable nuance: 'Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY', the bond-issuer example, ticker/CIK/ISIN/name input forms, and the ISIN-to-LEI mapping. This prevents realistic invocation errors beyond schema information.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning the tool as the prerequisite identifier-lookup step, with 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.'

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also enumerates supported entity types and input forms. However, it does not explicitly name when-not-to-use scenarios or alternative sibling tools, so exclusion guidance is only implicit.

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

All Elife 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by reliability mode; entity_profile vs compare_entities serve single vs multi-entity; and memorization, subscription, and search tools occupy separate operational niches. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), others are noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some mix verb+noun with underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This lack of uniformity makes the surface harder to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is borderline high. The server spans multiple domains (data query, prediction markets, eLife, memory, subscriptions), and each domain gets several tools, making the overall surface feel bloated. While individual tools are justified, the total count strains discoverability and hints at scope creep.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is incomplete relative to its stated breadth. For a server named 'Elife', only 3 tools actually serve eLife; the rest are dominated by Pipeworx and Polymarket. Within the query/data domain, coverage is deep but lacks write/modify tools. Prediction market analysis lacks execution tools (no order placement). This leaves clear gaps for agents that need to act on the data.

Resources