Skip to main content
Glama

Va Museum

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: ambiguous names produce figi_candidates rather than a forced answer, unresolved identifiers are explicitly listed under `unresolved`, LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully when upstream services are unavailable, and each call cascades through multiple endpoints. 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 content is dense and packs many necessary details, but the structure is a long wall of text with deeply nested parentheticals, especially inside the 'company' type explanation. It is front-loaded with examples and the core purpose, but parsing would benefit from bullet lists or clearer separation between types and behaviors.

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 there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return behavior, and it does so thoroughly. It covers supported entity types, accepted inputs, ambiguity handling, unresolved identifier behavior, source labelling, graceful degradation, and return fields for both company and drug. The definition is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly in most scenarios.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes well beyond the schema. It adds crucial guidance on the `value` parameter: pass only the entity name, for bonds use the issuer exactly as printed, and never include trailing security-class words. This level of clarification materially improves correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers, with explicit examples like ticker, CIK, LEI, and RxCUI. It positions itself as the 'FIRST' step when a name needs an ID, which differentiates it from sibling tools conceptually, but it does not explicitly name any sibling tool. Thus it misses the full 5 for explicit sibling differentiation.

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 a clear trigger condition: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also details accepted inputs for both supported types. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention alternative sibling tools, so the guidance stops short of full exclusions.

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

All Va Museum 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

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is notable overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded (same underlying data query, different answer modes), and multiple polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) can confuse agents about which to use for a given betting query. Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are clear, but the mix of museum, financial, and prediction market tools under one server increases ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, but the naming pattern is inconsistent: some start with a verb (search_objects, list_subscriptions, remember) while others start with a noun or modifier (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). The 'ask_' prefix is used twice, but overall there is no single predictable convention like verb_noun across the set.

Tool Count3/5

29 tools is high but not excessive for a general-purpose data server. However, the server is named 'Va Museum' which implies a narrow domain, making the count seem bloated. The set includes many tools unrelated to a museum (e.g., prediction markets, SEC filings), so the count is appropriate only if the server's actual scope is broad and multi-domain.

Completeness2/5

For a museum-focused server, the tool surface is severely incomplete, with only two museum-specific tools (search_objects, get_object) out of 29. Even as a general-purpose server, it lacks tools for common operations like updating or deleting resources, and the coverage of domains (e.g., no tool for creating or managing user data) feels ad hoc rather than systematically complete.

Resources