Skip to main content
Glama

Pipeworx

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses a wealth of behavior: graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, internal cascading lookups, ambiguity handling ('asserts nothing and returns figi_candidates'), explicit unresolved identifiers, and ISIN-to-LEI resolution. It even covers source labeling and the coverage of non-tickered instruments. This far exceeds the annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and a 'use FIRST' directive. It is structured logically: examples, then supported types, then edge-case behavior. Every sentence adds value—graceful degradation, ambiguity handling, and cascade explanation are all necessary context. It is verbose but not padded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description covers key return aspects ('figi_candidates', 'unresolved', source labels) and input nuances. It explains both `type` values and the proper `value` format. It could describe the full response JSON shape more explicitly, but given the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, this is adequately complete.

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?

The schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the ISIN-to-LEI resolution, the 'entity name only' rule for bonds, and the behavior when a name matches multiple instruments. These enrich the agent's understanding of how `value` is interpreted, raising the score to 4.

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 states a precise action ('resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers') and names the resource (canonical identifiers). It distinguishes itself from siblings by framing itself as the input provider for other tools ('other tools require as input' and 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID'). The supported types and examples make the scope unmistakable.

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.' This is clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but it does note that it 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups,' implying it subsumes several lookup steps rather than competing with a specific sibling.

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

All Pipeworx 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, especially the central data access tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, and compare_entities. However, the multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and the similar ask_pipeworx variants could cause confusion, especially for an agent quickly scanning options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, search_packs, resolve_entity). Some deviations exist, such as pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage (starting with a noun), and single-word names like forget and remember, but overall the style is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server feels overly heavy. While the broad domain (structured data across many sources) justifies a large number, the count exceeds the recommended 15–25 range, making it unwieldy for agents to navigate efficiently without extensive discovery.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains: company financials, drugs, economics, prediction markets, weather, and even MCP discovery. There are few obvious gaps given the stated purpose, though some areas like social media or international data could be added. Overall, the surface is well-rounded.

Resources