Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Events

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations: ambiguous names return `figi_candidates` rather than asserting, unresolved identifiers are listed under `unresolved`, and LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable. No statement contradicts the 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 query examples, and nearly every clause adds value. It is nonetheless long and occasionally repeats a point (e.g., the corrective note about issuer-name ambiguity), so a tighter edit would earn a perfect score.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description specifies returned identifier fields (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), failure representation (`unresolved`), ambiguity handling (`figi_candidates`), and external-source fallback behavior. An agent has enough detail to call the tool and interpret its results 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 100%, and the description still adds crucial param-level nuance. The `value` parameter gets a concrete warning—'Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY' with a bond example showing trailing security-class words match nothing—and the `type` enum is expanded with exactly what identifiers each value resolves and via which sources.

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-phrase examples and states the core operation: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It is explicit about the two entity types (company, drug) and the identifier families returned, making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

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.' It also specifies accepted input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name for company; brand/generic for drug) and clarifies when to use company vs. drug, covering the main routing decision an agent faces.

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

All Sec Events 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among similarly named tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could cause misselection. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a mix of patterns (verb_noun, noun_noun, etc.) and use different prefixes (polymarket_, sec_8k_, pipeworx_), which is somewhat inconsistent but still readable and descriptive overall.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the higher side, with several tools dedicated to specific subdomains (e.g., 6 Polymarket-related, 4 SEC 8-K tools). While each has a distinct role, the number feels slightly bloated for a single server.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a broad range of data research and monitoring tasks, including filings, entity profiles, claims, and prediction markets. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources