Skip to main content
Glama

Twelvedata

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?

Even though annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully when LEI/FIGI enrichment is unavailable, labels each identifier by source, and explicitly reports unresolved identifiers rather than omitting them. This goes well beyond the structured 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 it is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage trigger before moving into type-specific detail. The long parentheticals make it harder to scan, yet each sentence carries meaningful operational information, so it earns a 4 rather than a lower score.

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 to document return values, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it explains candidate outputs, unresolved fields, source labeling, and graceful degradation. For a tool that cascades through multiple data sources and handles two entity types, the description is sufficiently complete to guide correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the input schema already documents both parameters in detail. The description adds value by giving natural-language examples, clarifying what each entity type resolves to, and warning against passing full noun phrases for bond lookups. This lifts it above the baseline of 3, though the parameters themselves are simple and already well-covered.

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 natural-language queries and a clear verb: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It names the supported entity types ('company' and 'drug') and the identifiers returned, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like price, quote, or entity_profile that serve different lookups.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains edge-case behavior, such as ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates rather than guessing. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the usage context is clear and actionable.

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

All Twelvedata 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between price, quote, eod, and time_series for price data. Also, the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research could cause confusion about which to use for factual queries. Some tools like bet_research and polymarket_arbitrage also have overlapping domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case pattern (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, compare_entities). A few are single words (cryptocurrencies, indices, profile) which is acceptable. No mixing of camelCase or other conventions, so consistent overall.

Tool Count2/5

47 tools is quite high for a single server. While the domain is broad (financial data, prediction markets, SEC filings, etc.), many tools are highly specific (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, scan_dependency) and could be consolidated. The count feels bloated and adds cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is impressively comprehensive, covering stocks, forex, crypto, economic data, SEC filings, prediction markets, entity resolution, and even claims validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited drug data despite having some tools), but overall the surface supports a wide range of agentic workflows without obvious missing operations.

Resources