Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

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 mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, ambiguous matches returning `figi_candidates`, explicit `unresolved` fields, source labeling, and internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints.

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 trigger phrases and a clear directive. It is long and dense, but nearly every sentence carries substantive guidance; the length is justified by the complexity of the tool's multi-source resolution behavior.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains key return behaviors: `figi_candidates` for ambiguous matches, `unresolved` for failed identifiers, source labels, and drug RxCUI citations. Input handling, edge cases, and failure modes are covered well enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 adds critical parameter semantics beyond the schema: pass only the entity name, bond issuers must be exactly as printed, and trailing security-class words will fail the FIGI lookup. The `value` parameter is given rich real-world usage guidance.

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 clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools, with specific verbs and examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming the identifier types it returns and the entity types it supports.

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 says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', giving clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the context makes the usage boundary apparent.

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

All Odds Api 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

Most tools have distinct scopes, and the long cross-referencing descriptions help a lot. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx by the server's own description, and the polymarket_* family plus ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research have overlapping boundaries that could mislead an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority follow a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern like get_odds, list_sports, resolve_entity, and subscribe. A few exceptions such as odds_api_quota, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage, and recall break the pattern slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well past the 25+ threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Odds Api'. Many tools are meta-platform utilities — memory, feedback, trending, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation — that have no obvious connection to an odds API and make the surface hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, get_scores, quota tracking, and subscriptions form a coherent read/monitor workflow. Minor gaps exist — no historical odds or a single-event detail endpoint — but agents can complete core odds research and monitoring tasks without dead ends.

Resources