Skip to main content
Glama

Fintech Intel

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds meaningful behavioral context: internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources fail, explicit `unresolved` reporting, and ambiguity handling via `figi_candidates`. This goes well beyond what the annotations alone convey.

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 and dense, but almost every sentence carries useful information about behavior, inputs, or edge cases. It front-loads the core purpose and use case before diving into details. It could be slightly better structured into clearer sections, but it is not padded with filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what is returned for both company and drug types, how ambiguous matches are handled, what happens when enrichment services are unavailable, and how unresolved identifiers are reported. An agent has enough context to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description substantially enriches parameter meaning. It explains accepted input formats per type (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand/generic name), the nuance that non-equity instruments resolve here, the ISIN-to-legal-entity mapping, and the critical instruction to pass only the entity name, not the full noun phrase. This is significant added semantics beyond the 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 identifies a specific action — resolving user-spoken names to official identifiers — and the resource affected. It differentiates itself from siblings by stating 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which tells an agent exactly when to pick this tool over alternatives like entity_profile or search_within.

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 gives strong direction on when to use the tool ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and covers supported entity types. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a full 'use X instead' set of exclusions.

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

All Fintech Intel 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, discover_tools/suggest_questions/pipeworx_trending all serve discovery, and multiple Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) find opportunities. Descriptions help but an agent could easily pick the wrong data-query tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, mostly verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim) and prefix groups (fintech_*, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile or recent_changes are noun phrases but still readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a coherent set; the server appears to bundle a general-purpose data research platform, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions under one 'Fintech Intel' name. Many meta-tools could be split into separate servers, and the count burdens an agent with unnecessary choices.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the fintech/data-intel domain thoroughly: SEC filings, FDIC, FDA, economic data, real estate, prediction markets, monitoring subscriptions, and memory. Gaps are minor—e.g., no direct tool for historical stock charts, but the router (ask_pipeworx) handles such queries.

Resources