Skip to main content
Glama

Ulid

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: ambiguous names return figi_candidates rather than asserting a single bond, unresolvable identifiers are returned under unresolved, enrichment degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and internal cascading replaces multiple manual lookups. This gives an agent accurate expectations for edge cases and partial results.

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 heavily parenthetical, but the main usage rule is front-loaded and the extended detail addresses real edge cases such as ambiguous instruments, non-US issuers, and unavailable enrichment sources. Some redundancy exists, but most sentences earn their place by explaining behavior an agent would otherwise have to discover by trial.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly: it explains the shape of ambiguous results, the presence of unresolved fields, source labelling, and failure degradation. With only two required parameters and exhaustive guidance on both, an agent has almost everything needed to invoke this tool correctly.

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%, yet the description still adds high-value parameter detail: the value parameter is explained with concrete examples, the exact format expected for bond issuers, and a negative example ('NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH revenue bonds') that prevents a likely failure. The type parameter is also semantically expanded by listing what each type resolves to and which sources are consulted.

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 immediately states the core action: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers required by other tools. It further differentiates the tool by enumerating entity types and identifier sources (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), so it is unmistakable what resource this tool acts on and how it relates to id-looking tasks.

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 condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies supported types and accepted input forms, and corrects a likely misuse for securities with trailing security-class words. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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

All Ulid 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve as query entry points (with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now); polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research form a dense prediction-market suite; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are single vs. multi variants. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool without reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean snake_case convention and are mostly verb_noun (generate_ulid, parse_ulid, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim, compare_entities), making the set predictable. Minor deviations exist (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, ask_pipeworx_beta) but they are still readable and don't break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface, and the server name 'Ulid' suggests a tiny scope that wildly mismatches the actual content. While the real domain (Pipeworx data + prediction markets) is broad, the set bundles many subdomains into one server, making navigation and selection costly.

Completeness4/5

For the actual apparent domain—structured data research, entity lookups, verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions—coverage is strong: query, grounded query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, resolution, validation, discovery, alerts, and memory tools are all present. ULID functionality is minimal but sufficient (generate + parse). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct single-source browser beyond discover_tools) but agents can work around them.

Resources