Skip to main content
Glama

Htmlentities

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses rich behavior beyond the annotations: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, returns 'figi_candidates' on ambiguous matches, labels each identifier with its source, and explicitly reports unresolved identifiers. These details go well beyond the readOnly/idempotent hints.

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 but well-organized and front-loaded with purpose and examples. Every operational constraint (bond issuer naming, ambiguity behavior, graceful degradation) earns its place, though some repetition and density could be tightened without loss of clarity.

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 with no output schema, the description tells the agent what identifiers will come back, how ambiguity is handled, what 'unresolved' means, and what happens if enrichment sources fail. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema's value description is already detailed (e.g., bond issuer naming), so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra semantic value by stating that ISIN is an accepted input and explaining how an ISIN resolves to the legal entity via GLEIF mapping, which is not in 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 opens with concrete query examples and a specific verb+resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It goes on to define exactly which identifier types are produced for 'company' and 'drug', making the tool's role unambiguous even among 30+ sibling 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 explicitly states 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving a clear condition for when to invoke the tool. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., vs entity_profile), so it falls short of a full 5.

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

All Htmlentities 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing core, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market edge detection. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read a lot of nuance to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the convention is mixed: verb_noun names like encode_html and resolve_entity sit alongside bare verbs like remember and forget, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and polymarket_fill_risk. The ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* families are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the whole set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy set. The bloat is especially noticeable because the server is named Htmlentities yet only encode_html and decode_html relate to that purpose; the rest are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities.

Completeness4/5

The Pipeworx surface is broadly complete: ask/grounded/deep_research/discover/suggest cover data access, entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/validate_claim cover entity workflows, and subscriptions and memory have create/list/delete lifecycles. Minor gaps such as no update operation for subscriptions or memories are workable, and encode/decode fully covers the literal Htmlentities purpose.

Resources