Skip to main content
Glama

Entso E

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, the cascade of internal lookups ('replaces 2-3 manual lookups'), the explicit `unresolved` field for failed identifiers, source labelling, and the ambiguity rule for multiple FIGI matches. This exceeds what annotations communicate and meaningfully shapes agent expectations.

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 every clause earns its place — it packs in edge cases, fallbacks, and output expectations that would otherwise require probing. It front-loads the core purpose and the critical 'Use FIRST' instruction. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., both inline parentheticals and a dedicated SUPPORTED TYPES block), but it remains efficient for the amount of specificity conveyed.

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?

For a tool with two parameters, multiple data sources, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary call-time decisions: input format, edge cases (bonds, non-US issuers, ambiguity), fallback behavior, and what the response will contain (labelled identifiers, unresolved list, figi_candidates). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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 dramatically enriches parameter meaning. For `type` it distinguishes 'company' and 'drug' with concrete sub-behaviors. For `value` it gives format examples (AAPL, CIK, ISIN, 'ozempic'), warns against including security-class words on bond issuer names, and explains how ISINs map to legal entities. This is the single most valuable area of the description.

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 verb and resource ('resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling profile or comparison tools. It explicitly enumerates supported types (company, drug) and the identifier sources (SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, RxNorm), and gives realistic query examples. This is far beyond a tautology.

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 states 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' — a clear, actionable trigger. It also explains scope boundaries (e.g., non-equity instruments resolve, ISINs resolve to legal entities, ambiguous matches return figi_candidates). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to switch to when this one is inappropriate, so it stops short of a full exclusionary frame.

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

All Entso E 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ENTSO-E energy tools are clearly distinct, but the Pipeworx half contains overlapping query modes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying catalog. The Polymarket tools also blur edge detection, arbitrage, fill-risk, and persistence tracking, so an agent can easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

The five ENTSO-E tools use a clean snake_case noun pattern, but the rest mix brand verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), bare memory verbs (remember, recall, forget), and polymorphic prefixes (polymarket_*), with inconsistent suffixes like beta, grounded, and kalshi_spread. There is no server-wide predictable naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for the apparent scope, and the server name promises ENTSO-E while only 5 of 36 tools serve that domain. Even viewed as a general data utility, the count is heavy and includes duplicate query modes, though individual clusters do have some purpose.

Completeness3/5

For an ENTSO-E server, the five energy tools cover the basics (generation, load, price, flow, capacity) but omit common datasets like generation forecasts, balancing/imbalance prices, and outages. The unrelated Pipeworx tools add broad research, memory, and subscription coverage, but the overall surface feels like a general-purpose assistant with an energy add-on rather than a complete energy domain.

Resources