Skip to main content
Glama

Horizons Nasa

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 mark the tool read-only, open-world, and idempotent; the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, and explicit unresolved identifiers. No contradiction with 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 long and dense, with run-on sections, but it is front-loaded with trigger examples and the primary usage rule. Most sentences carry operational value, though tighter paragraphing would improve scanability.

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 present, the description takes on the burden of explaining returns and does so well: it covers resolved identifiers, source labels, unresolved fields, figi_candidates for ambiguous matches, and degradation paths. An agent has enough context to call the tool and interpret the result.

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%, yet the description adds unique semantic value: concrete accepted values (AAPL, 0000320193, CH0038863350), brand-vs-generic drug examples, and the critical instruction to pass only the entity name, not the question's full noun phrase. This materially improves correct invocation 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?

Description leads with concrete user utterances and a clear verb-resource pair: resolve user-spoken names to canonical identifiers other tools require. It names the supported entity types and explicitly frames its role ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID'), which separates it from sibling lookup/entity tools.

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 states exactly when to use the tool ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and gives extensive per-type guidance, including the caveat to pass the issuer name only and not a full noun phrase. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like lookup/entity_profile, but the context is clear enough.

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

All Horizons Nasa 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that differentiate overlapping capabilities (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs bet_research). No two tools appear redundant; even similar prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have specific scopes.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase snake_case (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Single-word exceptions (ephemeris, lookup, observers, recall, remember, vectors) are common short verbs and do not break the pattern. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is above the typical 3-15 range, but the server is a comprehensive data platform covering multiple domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback). The count is justified given the breadth; it feels slightly heavy but not bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle for a data/research platform: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), entity resolution (resolve_entity), lookups (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile), comparison (compare_entities), validation (validate_claim), prediction-market operations (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and meta/feedback (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). No obvious gaps for typical workflows.

Resources