Skip to main content
Glama

Ipqualityscore

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 annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: identifiers are 'labelled with the source that established it,' unresolved identifiers are 'stated explicitly under unresolved rather than omitted,' ambiguous matches 'assert nothing and return figi_candidates,' and enrichment 'degrades gracefully' when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable. It also explains the internal cascade through multiple lookup endpoints. This far exceeds what annotations alone convey, with no contradictions.

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 purpose and examples, but it is extremely long and densely packed with parentheticals, making it a wall of text. While every segment contains useful information, the lack of clear section breaks or bullet-like structure harms scannability. It is adequate but not concise for the amount of content.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries full responsibility for explaining behavior, and it achieves that thoroughly. It covers input variants, ownership chains, non-equity instruments, ambiguity handling, unresolved identifiers, degradation behavior, and the benefit of replacing multiple manual lookups. Nothing critical is left unexplained for an agent to successfully invoke this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches both parameters considerably. For 'type,' it explains that 'company' resolves to CIK, ticker, company_name from SEC EDGAR, LEI from GLEIF, and FIGI from OpenFIGI, while 'drug' returns RxCUI + ingredient + brand. For 'value,' it clarifies accepted inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name), explains ISIN-to-LEI mapping, and provides a concrete bond-name example that directly expands the schema's warning about trailing security-class words. This adds meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It includes multiple example queries ('What's the ticker for…' / 'find the CIK for…') and explicitly differentiates itself from siblings by saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also details the supported types ('company' and 'drug') and what each resolves, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' is an explicit when-to-use instruction that distinguishes this tool from later lookup steps. The description also gives precise input guidance, such as 'Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY' and warns against including trailing security-class words for bonds. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., entity_profile) or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

All Ipqualityscore 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple natural-language query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, suggest_questions) have heavily overlapping purposes, and the descriptions rely on subtle caveats to differentiate them. Similarly, entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence blur boundaries. Only the four check_* tools (email/ip/phone/url) are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency2/5

There are some consistent prefixes (check_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*) but the overall set mixes verb_noun, noun_verb, and standalone adjectival names (deep_research, entity_profile, bet_research, validate_claim, recent_changes). The pattern is readable within families but chaotic across the whole surface, with no unified convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server branded 'Ipqualityscore', especially since only 4 tools actually serve that fraud-checking domain. The rest sprawls into general data research, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions, and npm dependency scanning — a far larger scope than the name implies. This is a scattershot collection rather than a coherent offering.

Completeness2/5

The IPQS core domain is thin (only email, IP, phone, URL checks) and missing common fraud-screening operations like transaction scoring or domain reputation. Conversely, the Pipeworx side is over-complete with redundant query paths, while unrelated subsystems (memory, subscriptions, feedback) create dead ends that don't serve the server's apparent purpose. The lack of a clear domain makes genuine completeness impossible to assess or claim.

Resources