Skip to main content
Glama

Newsdata

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI sources are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` output behavior, and the `figi_candidates` ambiguity handling. It also explains that non-equity instruments resolve even without tickers. This is rich behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 purpose and usage, and it is well-organized by entity type. However, it is quite long and includes redundant illustrative examples and parenthetical explanations that could be trimmed. Despite the verbosity, most content earns its place 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?

The description is complete for a complex tool with no output schema: it explains identifier sources, resolution behavior, ambiguity handling, unsupported cases, and failure semantics. An agent has enough context to decide when to call the tool and what to expect in the response. The detailed notes on ownership resolution and ISIN-to-LEI mapping cover edge cases that would otherwise be opaque.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains what `value` should be for each type, gives concrete examples (AAPL, 0000320193, ozempic), and warns against passing full noun phrases for bonds. This prevents common misuse and materially helps an agent construct valid calls.

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 action: resolve a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require. It gives a rich set of concrete examples (ticker, CIK, LEI, RxCUI) and distinguishes this tool from ID-consuming siblings. It also clarifies supported entity types, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 instructs 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which is a strong when-to-use signal. It does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, but among the listed siblings none directly competes with the name-to-ID resolution role. The guidance about passing 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' adds practical usage nuance.

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

All Newsdata 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

Most tools have clearly distinct roles, and the extensive descriptions help differentiate intent, but the ask_pipeworx family—especially ask_pipeworx_beta, which is currently identical to ask_pipeworx—creates real ambiguity. Overlapping entry points like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim could also cause misselection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

All 34 tools use consistent snake_case, and clear verb-led or noun-prefixed patterns emerge across families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and remember/recall/forget. Minor deviations such as ai_visibility_check and recent_changes being noun phrases rather than verb_noun constructions prevent a perfect score.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for over-scoping, making the set heavy for an agent to navigate. While the server spans many domains, several tools like generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, and ai_visibility_check feel tangential to the core news/research purpose and would be better split into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The core news/research domain is well covered: lookup, grounded verification, deep multi-source research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and alert feeds are all present with no obvious dead ends. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct full-text article retrieval or a dedicated free-text news search beyond latest_news filters—but agents can work around them.

Resources