Skip to main content
Glama

Quickgo

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 declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, returning figi_candidates instead of asserting on ambiguous matches, explicitly surfacing unresolved identifiers rather than omitting them, and the internal cascade across lookup endpoints. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is dense and front-loaded with user-facing query examples, and nearly every clause adds useful nuance. However, it is a long single paragraph with many embedded parentheticals; breaking it into tighter scannable sections would improve structure without losing information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers return semantics (figi_candidates, unresolved, source labels), input constraints, failure behavior, and scope across company/drug types. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly, including edge cases like non-ticker instruments and non-US issuers.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds critical semantics: the exact input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), the ISIN-to-LEI path, and a strong warning to pass only the entity name and never the full noun phrase, with a concrete bond example. This materially improves call correctness beyond the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical identifiers needed by other tools. It names concrete query patterns ('what's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…') and enumerates exactly what company resolution returns (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI), cleanly separating it from sibling entity tools like entity_profile.

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 provides example phrasing. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, but the 'other tools require as input' framing and the exhaustive supported-type list give strong contextual guidance.

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

All Quickgo 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
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools target distinct resources, there is notable overlap between ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and between discovery tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions). The Polymarket prediction tools also have blurred boundaries (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage). This overlap can confuse an agent trying to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and are mostly descriptive. However, naming patterns vary: some start with verbs (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), others with nouns (ask_pipeworx, bet_research). The memory tools use single-word imperatives (remember, recall, forget), which differ from the multi-word pattern. Overall, it's readable but not rigidly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the breadth of domains (data access, prediction markets, biotech, subscriptions) justifies the count. Some tools feel peripheral (gene_annotations, generate_llms_txt) and could be split off, making the set slightly bloated for the core purpose of business/financial data and prediction markets.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of data sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, patents, news) and prediction market analysis comprehensively. However, there are minor gaps: no direct web search tool, no tool for fetching a specific SEC filing by accession (though ask_pipeworx may cover it). The set supports most core workflows without dead ends.

Resources