Skip to main content
Glama

Pride

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it explains multi-source lookup behavior, graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, how ambiguous matches are handled (returns figi_candidates), and that unresolved identifiers are explicitly stated. This adds substantial context beyond readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint.

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 information-dense; every sentence contributes required caveats or operational detail. It's front-loaded with a purpose statement and supported types, then behaviors. Slightly verbose but justified for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given that there's no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return behavior (figi_candidates, unresolved, sources, citations) and edge cases (non-equity bonds, non-US issuers). It is complete enough for an agent to call this tool correctly without needing additional context.

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%, and the description greatly enriches the 'value' parameter with concrete examples (e.g., passing issuer names exactly, avoiding trailing security-class words). This provides meaning well beyond the raw schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself implicitly by targeting name-to-ID conversion, but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools for comparison, so it loses one point.

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 explicit guidance to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', which is clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't state when not to use it or mention alternative tools, leaving some inference required for exclusions.

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

All Pride 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, creating a true duplicate. The six-tool Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) plus discover_tools vs suggest_questions give agents overlapping entry points that require deep reading to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Sub-families are internally consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget), but the server mixes verb_noun, domain_noun, and bare-verb styles across tools. bet_research breaks the polymarket_ prefix pattern, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence use different words for the same underlying concept.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy and spans at least six unrelated domains: a data-gateway, prediction markets, key-value memory, subscription management, PRIDE proteomics, and standalone utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency). The scope is so broad that it feels like multiple servers merged into one, making the surface hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

The dominant data-query domain is well covered: query, grounded query, deep research, profiles, comparison, change feeds, validation, entity resolution, and discovery are all present. Subscription and memory lifecycles are complete, and the prediction-market research surface is thorough; minor gaps exist only in peripheral areas like PRIDE project download/file details.

Resources