Skip to main content
Glama

Ipaddress

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 signal read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds rich behavioral detail: ambiguous names return `figi_candidates` rather than asserting, unresolved identifiers are explicit, LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully, and internal cascading replaces multiple lookups. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 example queries and the primary directive, then organized into SUPPORTED TYPES with operational caveats. It is long, but each segment contributes decision-relevant detail; slight verbosity and some parenthetical expansions keep it from a perfect conciseness score.

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 having no output schema, the description explains expected return behavior (`figi_candidates`, `unresolved`, source-labelled identifiers), input formats, type-specific behavior, failure degradation, and the internal cascade. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly in most realistic name-to-ID scenarios.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), but the description goes well beyond it: it documents accepted input variants (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), explains that ISINs resolve to legal entities via GLEIF, and warns to pass only the entity name without trailing security-class words. This adds meaningful semantic value 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?

The description opens with concrete user phrasings and a crisp statement: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It enumerates specific supported types (company, drug) and identifier systems (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), making the tool's role unmistakable and distinguishable from sibling lookup 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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' supported by example queries. It does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use resolve_entity, so it falls short of a full when/when-not specification.

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

All Ipaddress 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve similar querying purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which could confuse an agent. However, detailed descriptions clarify differences, and some tools are very distinct (e.g., CIDR parsing, entity profile). Overlap is moderate but not severe.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions) with underscores separating words. No mixing of styles like camelCase or abbreviations. Naming is clear and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, covering areas as diverse as IP parsing, AI visibility, Polymarket betting, and SEC filings. This broad scope suggests the server tries to do too much, leading to a heavy and potentially unwieldy tool set.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers many domains (financials, prediction markets, IP tools, memory, subscriptions) but has notable gaps: no update for stored memories, limited subscription management (no modification), and some tools are marked as beta or deprecated. The set feels broad but not deep.

Resources