Skip to main content
Glama

The Guardian

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?

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context: multi-source cascade, ambiguous matches return figi_candidates, unresolved identifiers are listed under 'unresolved' rather than omitted, and graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable. No contradiction with 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with examples and purpose, but it is very long and dense, with heavy nested parentheticals that reduce skimmability. It could be tightened and broken into bullet-style sections without losing value.

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 carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It covers resolved identifiers, source labeling, unresolved fields, ambiguity handling, and fallback behavior, which is remarkably complete for a complex tool. An agent has enough context to invoke it correctly and interpret likely outcomes.

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 goes well beyond the schema by explaining what each type resolves to, which identifiers are returned, and the significance of passing the exact entity name (especially for bond issuers). This provides meaning the schema alone does not convey, such as ISIN-to-LEI mapping and the drogue semantics for ambiguous matches.

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-resource pair: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require. It is immediately distinguishable from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities because it emphasizes identifier lookup rather than profile or comparison. The inclusion of example user phrasings anchors the purpose clearly.

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 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving clear selection criteria. It also explains when the tool returns candidates instead of asserting a single result, but it does not explicitly contrast against alternative tools such as entity_profile or search, so exclusions are absent.

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

All The Guardian 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes and similar names, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). The Guardian-specific tools are distinct but are outnumbered by these confusing clusters, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), some are verbs without objects (item, tags, forget, recall), and some are inconsistent in style (compare_entities vs. bet_research). There is no unifying naming convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is bloated for its implied purpose ('The Guardian' suggests a focused news outlet). Many tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket prediction markets), making the count feel excessive and unfocused. A news-specific server should have far fewer tools.

Completeness1/5

The tool set lacks a coherent domain. The Guardian news tools are complete (search, item, sections, etc.), but the massive inclusion of Pipeworx and Polymarket tools creates dead ends and gaps (e.g., no direct tool to list all prediction markets or search patents). The surface feels like a random collection rather than a designed whole.

Resources