Skip to main content
Glama

Stratz

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 mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguous matches returning `figi_candidates` rather than asserting, explicit `unresolved` reporting, source labels per identifier, and internal cascading through multiple 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 long and dense, but nearly every phrase carries operational value for a complex multi-type resolver. It is front-loaded with examples and a routing directive; the main cost is a single sprawling parenthetical structure that could be better organized.

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 carries the burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: CIK/ticker/company_name, LEI ownership fields, FIGI candidates, `unresolved` output, source labeling, RxCUI/ingredient/brand for drugs, and failure-mode behavior. An agent has enough to call and interpret the result 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%, but the description enriches the `value` parameter with critical format guidance: pass only the entity name, use the issuer exactly as printed for bonds, avoid trailing security-class words. This goes well beyond the schema's brief examples and materially helps correct invocation.

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 utterances ("What's the ticker for…", "find the CIK for…") and states a clear verb-object relationship: resolve a user-spoken NAME into canonical identifiers. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by noting these identifiers are what "other tools require as input" and by saying "Use FIRST".

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 strong when-to-use guidance: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," backed by representative query patterns. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing contrast.

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

All Stratz 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or intentionally duplicated purposes: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta currently behave identically, and the Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) presents multiple scanners with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but the set as a whole is hard to navigate without close reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare single nouns (hero, match, meta, remember, forget), snake_case verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_feedback, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-verb convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 43 tools, the server bundles at least five unrelated domains (Dota 2 stats, Pipeworx data querying, Polymarket analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). That is far too many for a focused MCP server, and the mix makes the surface feel like a grab bag rather than a purpose-built toolkit.

Completeness4/5

Each subdomain individually has solid coverage: Dota 2 has heroes/matches/players/tournaments/meta plus a GraphQL fallback, the data layer has discovery + routing + grounding + validation, and memory/subscriptions have full lifecycle operations. The only real gap is cohesion across domains; within each slice there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources