Skip to main content
Glama

Treasury Fiscal

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."New value: +"For 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."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavior: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, returns figi_candidates rather than asserting an ambiguous match, and explicitly reports unresolved identifiers. It also states it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. 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 dense and every sentence adds operational value, but it is presented as one long narrative paragraph without headings or bullets, which makes it harder to scan. It would benefit from structuring the supported types and edge cases as a list.

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, but the description compensates thoroughly: it explains what a successful company lookup returns, what an ambiguous FIGI match returns, and what unresolved identifiers look like. It also covers both types, all accepted inputs, and failure/degradation behavior, making the definition effectively self-sufficient.

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?

Even though the schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial operational semantics: pass only the entity name, never the full noun phrase; bond lookups should use the issuer exactly as printed; and accepted company inputs include ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name. This goes well beyond the schema's 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 clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers, with concrete examples (ticker, CIK, LEI, RxCUI) and an explicit SUPPORTED TYPES section. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on already-resolved entities or profiles.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and enumerates several query phrasings that trigger this tool. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

All Treasury Fiscal 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Most of the surface is dominated by overlapping meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) plus paired helpers (discover_tools/suggest_questions, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence), so an agent can easily pick the wrong one. The seven treasury_* tools are clearly distinct, but they are a small island in a much larger ambiguous set.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are broadly snake_case and family-prefixed (treasury_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), which helps, but the pattern is not consistently verb_noun: ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, deep_research, search_within, and recent_changes mix verb, noun, and product-specific naming styles. Within families it is readable, but across the whole set it is inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is too many for a server whose label is 'Treasury Fiscal'; only about six tools are treasury-specific and the rest are unrelated research, betting, memory, and subscription utilities. This is well into the 25+ heavy range and would make tool selection expensive and error-prone.

Completeness2/5

For a Treasury/Fiscal server the surface is thin: debt, receipts, customs duty, average rates, exchange rates, and net cost cover only a slice of Treasury data. Missing obvious components such as daily yield curves, auction calendars/results, federal outlays/spending by agency or function, and tax or appropriations data; the broad ask_pipeworx router softens but does not fill these as first-class tools.

Resources