Skip to main content
Glama

nouel

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 this a safe, idempotent read. The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: internal cascading of lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguity behavior returning figi_candidates rather than asserting, explicit unresolved list, and source-labelled identifiers. No contradiction 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?

Long but densely informative; the opening example queries and 'Use FIRST' directive make it front-loaded. Most sentences earn their place by covering type-specific behavior, matching pitfalls, and degradation semantics, though minor redundancy around replacing manual lookups and a somewhat sprawling structure prevent a 5.

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 bears the burden of explaining return values and call outcomes. It covers returned identifiers, unresolved items, figi_candidates, source labels, RxNorm citations, failure/degradation behavior, supported input formats, and per-type scope. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, yielding a baseline of 3. The description adds critical semantics beyond the schema: concrete input examples (AAPL, 0000320193, CH0038863350), ISIN-to-LEI resolution behavior, the bond issuer-name matching rule, and the 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' restriction to avoid trailing security-class words.

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?

States a precise verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers.' It distinguishes its role from sibling tools by framing itself as the entry point ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and by enumerating concrete example queries and supported types.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use guidance ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and gives behavioral usage constraints (pass the issuer exactly as printed, not the full noun phrase). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use instructions or named alternative tools, so it doesn't reach a 5.

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

All nouel 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all query Pipeworx data; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets). Descriptions help distinguish them, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly descriptive but mix conventions: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, get_prizes_by_year), others are noun_verb (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and a few are single verbs (remember, recall). No strong pattern, but still readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the server covers a wide range of domains (data querying, prediction markets, company analysis, Nobel prizes, memory, subscriptions). The count is high but each tool serves a specific purpose, justifying the breadth.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its stated domains: data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct bet placement on Polymarket), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources