Skip to main content
Glama

Stocktwits

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, it discloses multi-endpoint cascading, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, source labelling of identifiers, and explicit unresolved output. This adds substantial behavioral context and does not contradict the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is dense and mostly front-loaded, but it is also overlong and repetitive, re-listing input types already described in the schema. Long parenthetical chains and lack of structured headings make it harder to scan, even though most of the detail is valuable.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying return values for both types: CIK/ticker/company_name, LEI with parent/ultimate-parent/children, FIGI, and RxCUI/ingredient/brand/citation. It also covers unresolved and ambiguous cases, so an agent has enough to call and interpret the tool 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 already high at 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: accepted ticker/CIK/ISIN/name formats, an example ISIN-to-LEI mapping, and the critical warning to pass only the entity name, not the full noun phrase for bonds. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It then enumerates the exact output identifiers for company and drug types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like symbol_search or entity_profile by making clear it is the name-to-ID resolver.

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 directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and lists concrete trigger phrasings like "find the CIK for…" and "look up the ID for…". It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus a sibling lookup tool.

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

All Stocktwits 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools serve overlapping functions: three ask_pipeworx variants, two deep research tools, and multiple polymarket tools. StockTwits-specific tools are distinct but the overall set has significant ambiguity between Pipeworx and Polymarket tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming styles are mixed: some use lowercase (ask_pipeworx), some use underscores (ai_visibility_check), and some use prefixes (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent pattern across the tool set.

Tool Count3/5

40 tools is on the higher end but not extreme. However, many tools belong to the Pipeworx ecosystem, which seems separate from StockTwits, making the set feel bloated and unfocused for a single server.

Completeness2/5

StockTwits social features are adequately covered (symbol search, streams, trending), but the inclusion of Pipeworx tools creates a sprawling surface without complete coverage in any one domain. Missing core StockTwits features like user profiles or direct messaging.

Resources