Skip to main content
Glama

Opentreeoflife

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: the internal cascade across EDGAR/GLEIF/OpenFIGI/RxNorm, graceful degradation when enrichment sources are unavailable, ownership data from LEI, and support for non-equity instruments that lack tickers. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense and front-loads the core purpose before the supported types. It is somewhat long and contains a run-on company-type clause, but every sentence carries distinct information, so there is no true waste.

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?

For a two-type resolver with no output schema, the description covers input formats, per-type return fields, source coverage, edge cases (bonds, notes, non-US issuers via ISIN), and failure behavior for enrichment. An agent has enough to call it correctly and understand what it will get back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by listing accepted company inputs as 'ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name' (ISIN is absent from the schema), clarifying exact-ticker matching vs name search, and explaining that drug values may be brand or generic names.

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 core function: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It specifies the exact identifiers (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and supported entity types, making it clear this is the name-to-ID resolver among the sibling tools.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and notes that one call replaces 2-3 manual lookups. It does not, however, name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use conditions, so a small gap remains relative to perfect routing.

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

All Opentreeoflife 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping functionality with subtle differences, causing potential confusion. Overall, most tools are distinguishable.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of patterns: some follow verb_noun (validate_claim, resolve_entity), others are compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some are plain verbs (recall, forget). Inconsistent style and length reduce predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 34 tools, the count is on the high side for a typical server, but it might be manageable if the scope were broad. However, the server name 'Opentreeoflife' suggests a narrow biological focus, making the large count feel mismatched and excessive.

Completeness1/5

For a server named after a tree-of-life database, only three tools (match_names, common_ancestor, taxon_info) are relevant. Missing fundamental operations like listing children, searching taxa, or retrieving phylogenetic trees leaves the domain severely incomplete.

Resources