Skip to main content
Glama

Ine Pt

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing key behaviors: cross-source enrichment via EDGAR, GLEIF, and OpenFIGI; graceful degradation when enrichment sources are unavailable; explicit `unresolved` output instead of silent omission; ambiguous matches returning `figi_candidates`; and the fact that each call cascades through multiple internal lookups. This gives an agent a strong mental model of what will happen when the tool is invoked.

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 front-loaded with example utterances and a clear directive, which helps selection. However, it is extremely dense, with long parentheticals and a multi-clause company-type paragraph that is hard to parse quickly. While nearly every detail is relevant, the structure sacrifices scannability for comprehensiveness.

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?

Despite there being no output schema, the description explains return values and edge cases in detail: source-labelled identifiers, unresolved fields, figi_candidates for ambiguous names, and degradation behavior. It also covers both supported types and the input forms each accepts. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and anticipate the structure of the result.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantic detail, such as 'accepts ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name as input' for company and 'brand or generic name' for drug, plus the guidance that a bond's issuer name must be passed exactly as printed. This elevates it above the schema's examples and clarifies the intended value format.

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 names a specific action and outcome: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require as input. It provides many concrete example queries and explicitly covers two entity types, making the tool's scope immediately clear. It also differentiates itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it converts names to IDs rather than providing profiles or comparisons.

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 usage rule: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also enumerates accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name for company; brand/generic for drug), which helps an agent decide when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a specific alternative for cases where an ID is already known.

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

All Ine Pt 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions. However, a few tools like 'discover_tools' and 'suggest_questions' both serve exploratory functions and could cause confusion. Similarly, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'deep_research' overlap in scope but are differentiated by depth and account requirements. Overall, an agent can typically pick the right tool, but a few pairs require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are generally readable, but the convention varies: some are verb_noun (e.g., 'resolve_entity'), some are noun_noun (e.g., 'entity_profile'), and a few are just verbs (e.g., 'remember', 'forget'). The 'polymarket_' prefix helps group related tools, but the diversity in patterns slightly reduces predictability.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the set is slightly large but justified by the wide range of functionality: data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is not excessive given the server's role as a gateway to thousands of data sources. It feels well-scoped for its domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most essential operations: querying data, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and onboarding. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a generic subscription for all data changes or a way to list all available data packs directly. However, 'discover_tools' partially addresses this. Overall, the surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose.

Resources