Skip to main content
Glama

Hurricanes

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."New value: +"For 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial detail beyond that: internal cascading across multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting instead of omission, and assertion-nothing behavior with `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches. This is exactly the kind of runtime-context transparency an agent needs.

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 front-loaded with the trigger phrases and purpose, and its later sections are mostly dense with useful caveats. However, several sentences are long and heavily parenthetical, making some details harder to scan at a glance. It earns its length overall, but a bit more structure would improve it.

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?

For a complex multi-source tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential runtime contracts: what identifiers are returned, how sources are labelled, how unresolved identifiers are surfaced, how ambiguous security matches behave, and what happens when enrichment services fail. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly and interpret its results.

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 enriches both parameters considerably: it explains what `type` values map to, lists accepted forms for `value` (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand, generic name), gives real examples, and warns against passing full noun phrases for bonds because trailing security-class words fail the FIGI lookup. This guidance prevents realistic caller mistakes the schema alone would not.

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 utterances ('What's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…') and states the core verb-plus-resource: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical identifiers other tools need. It also names the supported entity types and the sources of each identifier, making its purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies input norms, such as passing the issuer exactly as printed for bond lookups. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative siblings, so the guidance is strong but not fully exclusionary.

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

All Hurricanes 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is nearly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the presence of several meta-tools may cause slight confusion. Overall, an agent can differentiate most tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase_with_underscores and follow an action_domain pattern (e.g., validate_claim, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is a mix of verb-noun and noun-verb, but the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the higher end, but given the broad scope (finance, drugs, prediction markets, data retrieval, memory), the count is reasonable. However, the server name 'Hurricanes' suggests a narrower focus, making the count feel excessive for that domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data domains and includes meta-tools for discovery, grounded answers, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no non-US company data), but overall the surface is comprehensive for a general-purpose data server.

Resources