Skip to main content
Glama

Gemini Crypto

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?

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, multi-match behavior via figi_candidates, and explicit unresolved fields. These are meaningful behavioral traits an agent cannot infer from the schema or annotations.

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 well organized and front-loaded with the purpose and usage priority, but it is quite long and contains dense parenthetical expansions. Most content earns its place, though it could be tightened without losing critical caveats.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains what the agent should expect: source-labelled identifiers, unresolved fields, figi_candidates for ambiguous matches, and degraded enrichment behavior. It covers edge cases, supported entity types, and input formats comprehensively for a complex resolution tool.

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%, but the description still adds substantial value with concrete examples (AAPL, 0000320193, ozempic), explains what each supported 'type' resolves to, and warns about the exact input format for bonds. This materially reduces the risk of malformed or ambiguous calls.

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 queries and states the core verb-resource pairing: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers. It also signals how it differs from sibling lookup tools by emphasizing that these IDs are what 'other tools require as input.'

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and provides detailed input rules such as passing the issuer name exactly for bonds and avoiding trailing security-class words. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives, so there is no formal exclusion list, but the priority guidance is clear.

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

All Gemini Crypto 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve overlapping research purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities), which could confuse an agent. However, descriptions help differentiate them by use case (single vs multi-part, grounded vs standard, etc.). Some overlap remains.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix patterns: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), others are noun_phrase (price_feed, recent_alerts) or adjective_noun (ticker_v2). No strong naming convention, but all use snake_case consistently, making them readable.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is on the high side for a single server, covering both Gemini exchange data and Pipeworx's broad knowledge tools. While each tool serves a purpose, the scope feels broad, and some tools could be separated into dedicated servers.

Completeness4/5

The Gemini exchange tools cover essential read-only data (order book, candles, ticker, trades), but lack order placement, likely intentionally. The Pipeworx tools provide extensive research capabilities across many domains, leaving few gaps for the stated purposes.

Resources