Skip to main content
Glama

Estat Japan

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, non-assertion via figi_candidates on ambiguity, and explicit unresolvable identifiers under `unresolved`. This rich behavioral context is exactly what an agent needs beyond the bare hints.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with examples and a clear purpose, but it becomes an extremely dense block with many parenthetical asides and some repetition of the type enum/value examples already present in the schema. Every sentence is informative, but the overall length and nesting are not concise.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returned and edge-case behavior. It covers ambiguity handling, unresolved identifiers, source labeling, fallback behavior, and the fact that this replaces 2–3 manual lookups. For a two-parameter tool with these annotations, nothing essential 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial meaning: the value parameter gets entity-name-only instructions, an ISIN-to-LEI resolution example, and bond issuer formatting guidance ("NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH" vs. trailing security-class words). These details materially improve the chance a correct value is passed.

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 states a precise verb+resource: "resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input." It also gives many concrete query patterns (ticker, CIK, LEI, RxCUI), which makes the tool's role unmistakable and distinct from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," and enumerates supported entity types and input forms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool vs. nearby siblings, so it stops just short of a 5.

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

All Estat Japan 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx variants and Polymarket tools, but detailed descriptions help differentiate. Some tools like 'discover_tools' and 'suggest_questions' also have similar discovery roles, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow snake_case but lack a consistent pattern: some start with verbs (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'compare_entities'), others with nouns (e.g., 'entity_profile', 'recent_changes'), and prefixes like 'pipeworx_' and 'polymarket_' are used sporadically, making the naming scheme mixed but still readable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Estat Japan', which should focus on Japanese statistics. The majority of tools are general-purpose Pipeworx tools, diluting the scope and making the count feel bloated for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The e-Stat tools (list_data_catalog, search_stats, get_metadata, get_data) provide basic read-only access but lack update or delete operations. The inclusion of many unrelated tools leaves significant gaps for Japanese statistics, and the overall surface is incomplete for the server's implied domain.

Resources