Skip to main content
Glama

Tax Regulations

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 non-destructive, so the buffer here is high. The description nevertheless adds rich behavioral detail: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, the `figi_candidates` ambiguity handling, the explicit `unresolved` field, source-labeling of identifiers, and the internal cascade across lookup endpoints. None of this conflicts with the annotations, and it gives an agent a reliable mental model of failure and partial-resolution modes.

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 clause earns its place given the tool's factual complexity (four identifier types, two entity kinds, ambiguity handling, degradation behavior). It is front-loaded with examples and the 'Use FIRST' directive before diving into per-type details. Minor deduction for being a single undifferentiated wall of text; lists or section breaks would improve scannability.

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, so the description bears full responsibility for return semantics. It covers resolution outcomes, ambiguity (figi_candidates), absence of resolution (unresolved), source provenance, and degraded enrichment paths. For a tool with only two parameters but an internally complex pipeline, this is a thorough, decision-ready portrait.

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 both parameters describe accepted inputs, so the baseline is 3. The description goes well beyond the schema by enumerating accepted input forms for `value` (ticker, CIK, ISIN, or company name for company; brand or generic for drug), clarifying the ISIN-to-LEI mapping behavior, and adding the crucial 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' caveat with a bond example that explains why trailing security-class words fail the FIGI lookup. This materially improves the agent's ability to format the parameter 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-phrase examples and a crisp statement: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities by its function (name→ID) rather than profile comparison. The verb 'resolve' plus the explicit identifier targets (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) make the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly directs the agent to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which is a strong usage signal. It also implies alternatives by noting this tool 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups,' but it does not name or contrast specific sibling tools (e.g., entity_profile for enriching an already-known ID). Clear context but no explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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

All Tax Regulations 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

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools. The two tax-specific tools are distinct, but the sheer number of generic data-access tools makes it difficult for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of snake_case (ask_pipeworx, tax_search), camelCase (ask_pipeworx_beta, compare_entities, discover_tools), and inconsistent verb styles (resolve_entity vs entity_profile vs scan_competitor_ai_presence). No clear pattern is discernible.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Tax Regulations' but only 2 of 33 tools are tax-related. The other 31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx data-access, memory, subscription, and Polymarket tools, making the count wildly excessive and mismatched with the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the tax regulation domain, tax_search and tax_regulation cover keyword discovery and full-text retrieval, which is a functional core. However, the set lacks any other tax-specific operations (e.g., updates, comparisons, planning), and the majority of the tool surface is irrelevant to the stated server purpose, leaving notable gaps for an agent expecting a coherent tax toolset.

Resources