Skip to main content
Glama

Energy Charts

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description substantially extends the annotations with behavioral details: internal cascading of multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `figi_candidates` output on ambiguity, `unresolved` fields, source-labelled identifiers, and ISIN-to-LEI resolution. No contradiction with readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints exists.

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 but well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage trigger. Some densely parenthetical sentences, especially the company-type explanation, make parsing harder, but nearly every sentence contributes unique information about behavior, supported types, or input constraints.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains what will be returned: identifiers with source labels, `figi_candidates` on ambiguity, `unresolved` for failures, and the drug-level RxCUI/ingredient/brand/citation output. Combined with fallback behavior and input guidance, an agent has what it needs 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.

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already documents both parameters in detail, including examples and the 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' rule. The description adds meaningful extras beyond the schema, notably accepting ISIN as an input form and explaining non-equity resolution behavior. Because coverage is high, the extra value is useful but not essential.

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 gives a specific verb ('resolve') and resource (user-spoken names to canonical identifiers), lists concrete query examples, and clearly distinguishes its role from sibling tools by saying it supplies IDs other tools require. Supported types ('company', 'drug') are explicitly enumerated.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use it: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' with many example phrasings. It doesn't name specific alternative tools or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full when/when-not/alternatives coverage, but the trigger conditions are highly concrete.

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

All Energy Charts 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which all perform similar data retrieval. The multiple Polymarket tools also overlap in focus, making it unclear which to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: some use 'ask_', 'polymarket_', 'pipeworx_', while others like 'electricity_price', 'installed_power', and 'remember' follow no coherent pattern. Conventions are mixed and unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server is over-scoped for an 'Energy Charts' purpose. Only 5-6 tools are directly energy-related; the rest are a miscellany of data services, prediction markets, and memory functions, which is excessive and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The server lacks essential energy analysis tools like forecast, emission factors, or capacity utilization, yet includes many unrelated tools (e.g., betting, memory). This creates significant gaps for the stated domain.

Resources