Skip to main content
Glama

Permid

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."New value: +"For 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."
  2. First observed

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, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial context beyond these: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returning `figi_candidates` instead of asserting on ambiguity, explicit `unresolved` reporting, source-labelled identifiers, and internal multi-endpoint cascading. 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.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely long and dense, with heavy parenthetical asides and a redundant closing pitch ('using resolve_entity replaces 2-3 manual lookups') that adds no operational value. While purpose and usage details are front-loaded, the sheer verbosity makes the definition harder to scan than necessary.

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 thoroughly covers return behavior: identifiers with provenance labels, `figi_candidates` for ambiguity, `unresolved` for missing IDs, and degradation semantics. Both supported types are fully specified with input rules and expected outputs, so an agent has enough to call the tool 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 already 100%, and the description goes well beyond it. For `type`, it details the company versus drug behavior. For `value`, it provides ticker/CIK/ISIN/brand/generic variants, concrete examples, and a critical parsing rule ('Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY ... never the question's full noun phrase') that prevents a classic failure mode.

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 specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME' to canonical/official identifiers other tools require). It enumerates supported entity types and identifier outputs (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and positions itself as the tool to use when a name needs an ID, distinguishing it from the many sibling search/profile 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?

Gives an explicit directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and provides representative query patterns that signal when to invoke it. It does not name sibling tools (e.g., search_entities, get_entity, entity_profile) as alternatives for cases where an ID is not the goal, so exclusion conditions are left implicit.

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

All Permid 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the set includes three very similar `ask_pipeworx` variants that could cause confusion despite detailed descriptions. The Polymarket and memory tools are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow a mix of patterns: some `verb_noun` (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some `noun_noun` (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and some standalone nouns (forget, recall). While readable, the inconsistency is notable.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, the server is on the heavy side for typical MCP servers (3-15 ideal). However, the broad scope covering many data domains partially justifies the count.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data access and analysis needs, including entity resolution, company profiles, betting analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing entities), but overall it's well-rounded.

Resources