Skip to main content
Glama

Geonames

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add deep behavioral context. It discloses internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` fields, and the `figi_candidates` fallback for ambiguity — all beyond what annotations provide.

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 it is well-structured with clear sections (examples, supported types, graceful degradation) and every sentence contributes operational detail. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, yet the sheer volume of parenthetical qualification makes it heavier than strictly necessary.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: company resolutions list CIK/ticker/name/LEI/FIGI with source labels and `unresolved` handling; drug resolutions state RxCUI/ingredient/brand and citation. Edge cases (ambiguous bonds, ISIN mapping, unavailable enrichment) are all covered.

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 adds substantial meaning: `type` gets per-enum behavior details (company vs drug), and `value` gets examples, input-form alternatives (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), and a concrete caution about trailing security-class words. This goes well beyond the schema's terse property descriptions.

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-phrase examples and a crisp mission: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It names specific resources (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and supported types, making the tool's function unmistakable and differentiating it as a prerequisite that '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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also gives input-format instructions (e.g., pass the issuer exactly as printed, not the full noun phrase) and explains ambiguous-name behavior. However, it never names alternative tools or states when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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

All Geonames 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* scanners), and the mix of unrelated domains makes it hard to tell which tool is canonical for a task. The few geographic tools are distinct, but they are buried among dozens of non-geographic tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_geonames, resolve_entity), proper-noun prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern or verb style across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far more than a Geonames-focused server needs, and most are unrelated to geospatial data. The count would be borderline for a general data platform, but it is excessive and unfocused for the stated server name.

Completeness1/5

The geographic surface is severely incomplete: only four tools (search_geonames, get_nearby, find_postal_codes, get_timezone) cover a tiny sliver of typical Geonames functionality like reverse geocoding, elevation, or distance calculations. The many non-geographic tools do not compensate for the missing core domain coverage.

Resources