Skip to main content
Glama

emojihub

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds significant value: cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI unavailable, explicit listing of unresolved identifiers, and source labeling. 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 fairly long but well-structured with front-loaded examples and clear sections for each type. Every sentence provides useful information. Slightly verbose but justified by the coverage needed to explain the complex behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers return behavior (identifiers with source labels, unresolved listed), error handling (graceful degradation), and use cases. It could have described the exact response structure, but the mention of identifiers and unresolved is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). However, the description enriches the schema significantly: for 'type' it details what each type returns, and for 'value' it lists accepted formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name for company; brand/generic for drug). This adds meaning beyond the basic schema.

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 clearly states the tool resolves names to canonical identifiers, with specific examples like 'What's the ticker for...' and lists supported types (company, drug). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing that it provides identifiers needed as input for other tools.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also implies when not to use (if you already have an ID) and explains that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. Could be 5 if it explicitly stated 'do not use if you already have the identifier' but it's clear enough.

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

All emojihub 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the numerous Pipeworx query and prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_fill_risk). Descriptions help differentiate them, so the ambiguity is minor.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, validate_claim), phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and standalone nouns (pipeworx_feedback). While readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less cohesive.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, with many highly specialized prediction market and Pipeworx management tools. The server's name 'emojihub' suggests a narrow focus, but the actual scope is much broader, making the count feel somewhat inflated for its apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: factual data retrieval, company profiles, comparisons, claim validation, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and emoji lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for simple web search), but overall coverage is comprehensive.

Resources