Skip to main content
Glama

Imei

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: graceful degradation of enrichment if GLEIF/OpenFIGI unavailable, EDGAR identifiers still return, cascading internal lookups, and how unresolvable identifiers are handled. Minor gap: it doesn't disclose rate limits or failure response format, but the description goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and information-rich but somewhat rambling. It packs many examples and caveats into long sentences, and the opening list of user phrasings is useful but could be trimmed. It is front-loaded with purpose, but the structure is somewhat stream-of-consciousness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description is thorough: it explains return types (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), behavior on partial resolution, and input conventions. It doesn't fully specify all return fields or error cases, but given the tool's complexity and the annotations, it is quite complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the 'type' parameter with supported types and enriches the 'value' parameter with detailed examples and a negative example. It adds meaningful nuance for drug names and bond issuer names.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers. It gives a specific verb ('resolve'), resource ('entity names to identifiers'), and differentiates from siblings by naming the input types and the identifier outputs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also provides rich usage guidance: supported types, what inputs are accepted, when to use it instead of manual lookups, and how it replaces multiple lookups. It also includes a caveat about what to pass for bonds.

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

All Imei 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The prediction-market cluster also has six tools whose distinctions require careful reading, making mis-selection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are lowercase snake_case and reasonably descriptive, but no consistent verb_noun pattern holds across the set. entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_imei are verbs, and the useful ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* prefixes are not applied server-wide.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for an agent to navigate efficiently, especially since the underlying data surface is already hidden behind ask_pipeworx and dozens more tools. The set spans data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, IMEI validation, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, making it feel like a grab bag rather than a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The main query/verify/research/monitor workflow is covered well: ask, grounded, deep research, claim validation, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory all exist, so common paths have few dead ends. However, the set is not a single coherent domain, and there is no direct fetch/read-record tool or prediction-market execution tool, leaving some reasonable follow-up actions implicit.

Resources