Skip to main content
Glama

Nyt

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses several important behaviors: graceful degradation if GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, the return of figi_candidates when a name matches multiple instruments, explicit unresolved fields, source-labeling of identifiers, and internal cascading through multiple endpoints. This gives the agent an accurate model of side effects and edge cases.

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, but the content is dense and mostly load-bearing; the purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded and the supported types are clearly separated. A little trimming could improve skimmability, but there is little outright redundancy.

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 the full burden of explaining what the agent should expect: returned identifiers, candidate lists on ambiguity, unresolved fields, and fallback behavior on enrichment failures. It also covers accepted input formats and edge cases, making it complete for a complex resolution 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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds critical semantics: example values for type and value, the distinction between issuer name and bond security name, the caution against passing full noun phrases, and the ISIN-to-legal-entity behavior. This materially improves the agent's ability to populate the value parameter correctly.

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 states the exact job: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities by framing it as the identifier-resolution step rather than a profiling or comparison step.

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." It also explains that one call replaces multiple manual lookups, which helps an agent prioritize it. It does not explicitly list when not to use the tool or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All Nyt 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying sources with overlapping question-answering purposes. Entity-focused tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity also have fuzzy boundaries that make selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix conventions: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, search_articles, generate_llms_txt), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile), and an ask_* family with beta/grounded variants. There is no consistent verb or noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the surface is well above the 15-tool threshold for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the NYT domain implied by the server name. The breadth reflects a broad data-platform grab bag rather than a scoped, intentional tool set.

Completeness4/5

The query side is unusually complete: single-lookup, grounded lookup, deep research, claim validation, entity resolution, comparison, profile, change-feed, discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools are all present. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct NYT article fetch by URL and no update path for stored memories, but agents can work around them.

Resources