Skip to main content
Glama

Rba

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses rich non-obvious behavior: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguity resolution via figi_candidates, explicit reporting of unresolved identifiers, source-labeling, and cascading internal lookups. This far exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, and uses dense parentheticals to pack many details. It is longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool, with some sprawling clauses, but nearly every sentence adds functional value for disambiguating entities.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return semantics, and it covers key expectations: returned identifiers (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), figi_candidates for ambiguous matches, and an unresolved list. It stops short of a full output example or complete field enumeration, which would make the return contract even clearer.

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%, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: type-specific rules, the 'pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY' instruction with the 'NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH' vs 'revenue bonds' example, ISIN-to-LEI resolution, and bond issuer-name matching. This is exactly the kind of parameter nuance an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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-phrasing examples and states the core purpose: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It names specific resources (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) and sources (SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, RxNorm), making the tool's function unambiguous and distinguishing it from siblings 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?

The description gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies behavior in ambiguous cases and substitution scenarios. However, it never explicitly says when not to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling (e.g., entity_profile for entity detail), stopping short of a full when-not/alternatives guide.

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

All Rba 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying catalog, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread all target prediction-market opportunities. entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also share company-research territory, making misselection likely without reading long descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, rba_cash_rate), and some are brand-prefixed product names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending). The polymarket_* and rba_* families are internally consistent, but the overall surface has no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface, well above the 25+ threshold that typically becomes unwieldy. While the server covers a broad domain (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, company research), many tools are niche variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_competitor_ai_presence) that add cognitive load rather than earning their place.

Completeness3/5

Core flows are well covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and data access has ask_pipeworx plus grounded and research variants. However, the surface is sprawly and uneven — prediction markets get six tools while other domain areas rely on generic routing, and the server's overall purpose is diffuse enough that gaps are hard to assess cleanly.

Resources