Skip to main content
Glama

Gaming Feeds

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully when LEI/FIGI enrichment is unavailable, explicitly reports unresolved identifiers, and returns figi_candidates rather than asserting a single match. This is rich, non-obvious behavior clearly disclosed.

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 the length is warranted given the tool's complexity and multiple entity types. The front-loaded examples and 'Use FIRST' instruction make the core message immediate, though the text could be organized with clearer section breaks for faster scanning.

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, two parameters, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers supported types, input formats, ambiguity handling, source attribution, unresolved identifiers, non-US issuers, non-equity instruments, and failure behavior. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly in a wide range of situations.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant semantic value: accepted input formats include ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name, and the drug branch accepts brand or generic names. It also explains the important constraint that only the entity name should be passed, with a concrete example of what trailing words would break the lookup.

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 concrete user phrasings and states the core function: resolving a spoken name to canonical identifiers that other tools require. It distinguishes itself from siblings like entity_profile and compare_entities by focusing on identifier resolution rather than broader entity queries.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also gives nuanced guidance for edge cases, such as passing only the issuer name for bonds and not the full noun phrase, and describes what happens when ambiguity exists.

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

All Gaming Feeds 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research—all of which route questions to the same underlying catalog. The polymarket_* family also has several opportunity-scanning tools (edges, arbitrage, bet_research) that agents could confuse without reading the long descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 34 tool names use lowercase snake_case with a clear verb-first or noun-descriptive pattern (list_feeds, read_feed, remember, resolve_entity, polymarket_arbitrage). Even compound names like ai_visibility_check and ask_pipeworx_grounded follow a predictable, consistent style. No mixed conventions or camelCase deviations.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far more than the apparent 'Gaming Feeds' scope suggests—only list_feeds, read_feed, and fetch_feed actually relate to gaming feeds. The rest form a sprawling data-research and prediction-market suite, creating a severe mismatch between the server name and its actual tool surface.

Completeness4/5

Viewed as a general Pipeworx data-access platform, the tool set is quite complete: question routing, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, memory, subscriptions, alerts, feed reading, and tool discovery are all covered. The only notable gaps are feed management (no create/update/delete for custom feeds) and a few odd add-ons like generate_llms_txt that feel outside the core domain.

Resources