Skip to main content
Glama

Met No

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 declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description substantially enriches that by disclosing degradation behavior when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, ambiguous-name handling via `figi_candidates`, source-labeled identifiers, and multi-endpoint cascading. No contradictions with annotations.

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 long and dense, but it is organized by purpose, usage rule, supported types, and graceful degradation. Some parenthetical clauses are heavy and could be tightened, but each section contributes operational information rather than filler, so it remains justified given the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It covers what identifiers are returned for each type, how ambiguity is handled, how unresolved identifiers are reported, how sources label outputs, and what happens on upstream degradation. For a complex multi-source resolver, this is complete enough to guide invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it documents ISIN as an accepted input (the schema mentions only ticker, CIK, or name), explains ISIN-to-LEI resolution, and clarifies that bond lookups should use the issuer name exactly as printed. This materially improves an agent's ability to supply correct values.

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 phrases and states a specific verb+resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It clearly distinguishes this from document/profile tools by emphasizing identifier resolution and lists supported entity types with the exact identifiers returned (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI).

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 explicitly tells the agent to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which is strong practical guidance. It also gives supported entity types and accepted inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name, brand/generic drug name). However, it does not name sibling alternatives or provide explicit 'do not use when' conditions, so it falls short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

All Met No 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among closely related ones (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research; multiple Polymarket tools). Descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate, but an agent might still misselect on subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use lowercase with underscores, but no strong verb_noun pattern. Some are noun-based (airquality, nowcast), others verb-based (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). This is readable but not perfectly predictable.

Tool Count4/5

35 tools is high but justified by the server's broad scope (data queries, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions). The number feels appropriate given the comprehensive functionality described.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an impressively wide range of capabilities: data querying with multiple modes, entity profiling, comparisons, search, betting analysis, weather, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Missing features (e.g., updating memories) are minor; the surface is remarkably complete.

Resources