Skip to main content
Glama

The Committee

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?

Even with annotations indicating read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, the description adds substantial context: cascading lookups, graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, explicit unresolved identifiers, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, and source labelling. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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 but front-loaded with the core directive and packed with necessary behavior for a complex multi-source tool. Some sentences are dense, yet they each contribute meaningful constraints or edge-case guidance.

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 does the needed work of explaining what the tool returns, including canonical identifiers, unresolved identifiers, and candidate lists for ambiguous matches. It also covers non-equity securities, ISIN-to-LEI mapping, and fallback behavior, making the tool fully understandable for correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema already covers both parameters, the description adds crucial unstated semantics: accepted input forms for company (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), brand/generic names for drugs, and the important caveat to pass only the entity name, not the full noun phrase. These details help the agent avoid common invocation errors.

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 names a precise verb and resource: resolve a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by emphasizing 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and by enumerating the supported entity types and identifier sources.

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 says to use this tool first when the user has a name but needs an ID, and it clarifies behavior across company vs. drug types. It does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select it over related tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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

All The Committee 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The ask_pipeworx family creates real ambiguity: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, leaving an agent no principled way to choose between them. discover_tools and suggest_questions also overlap as meta-tools for navigating the catalog, though the remaining tools (five polymarket_* tools, entity tools, subscription lifecycle) are well-delineated by their detailed cross-referenced descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case with coherent subfamilies (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, remember/recall/forget), but it mixes imperative verb_phrase names (validate_claim, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt) with noun_phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check), and the_committee_convene breaks the pattern entirely with a full-sentence name. The inconsistency is stylistic rather than chaotic, so it stays readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and the breadth is not fully earned: ask_pipeworx_beta is self-admittedly redundant right now, and several tools feel bolted on from unrelated domains (the_committee_convene, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check). The core data-research and prediction-market scope would be tighter and more navigable at roughly 20-24 tools.

Completeness4/5

The primary domain — authoritative data lookup, entity research, and prediction-market analysis — is covered with no dead ends: query (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), profile (resolve_entity, entity_profile, compare_entities), track (recent_changes), verify (validate_claim), bet research (bet_research, polymarket_edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, kalshi_spread), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), and memory (remember/recall/forget) form complete lifecycles. Minor gaps exist only at the periphery: no execution layer for prediction-market trades (research stops at fill-risk advice) and single-tool coverage for the npm/llms.txt/AI-visibility side-domains.

Resources