Skip to main content
Glama

Vat

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses multi-source resolution (SEC EDGAR, GLEIF, OpenFIGI, RxNorm), ambiguous-input behavior via figi_candidates, explicit unresolved identifiers, graceful degradation when enrichment sources are down, and ISIN-to-LEI behavior. This gives the agent an unusually clear model of side effects and outputs.

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 valuable but delivered as one extremely dense run-on paragraph with nested parentheticals; it could be restructured with bullets or shorter sentences. It is front-loaded with examples and avoids pure padding, but it is not appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool.

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, the description supplies enough output expectations (10-digit CIK, ticker, company_name, RxCUI, ingredient, brand, figi_candidates, unresolved) to let the agent interpret results. It covers supported types, input variants, edge cases, and failure modes, so the tool is callable correctly without needing additional context.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical interpretation rules: accepted input formats for company (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), drug name examples, the requirement to pass only the entity name, and the warning that trailing security-class words break bond matching. This materially improves the agent's ability to supply the right value.

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 user phrasings and states a clear action: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers other tools require. It differentiates itself by defining the supported entity types, the sources for each, and by positioning itself as the ID resolver while sibling tools like entity_profile consume IDs.

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 gives an explicit routing rule: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID," and illustrates with query examples. It also covers disambiguation and degradation behavior, but it does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it falls just 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 Vat 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, and entity_profile vs recent_changes cover similar ground. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (validate_vat, list_vat_formats, resolve_entity), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are product-branded (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback). It's readable but does not follow a single predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, especially for a server named 'Vat' where only two tools (list_vat_formats, validate_vat) relate to the apparent purpose. The bulk forms a broad data-research platform that would be more appropriately split into separate VAT and Pipeworx servers.

Completeness4/5

For the actual data-research domain, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookup, grounded answers, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim verification, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market tooling are all present. The only clear gap is that the VAT-specific surface is minimal (format validation only, no registration/VIES check), but the overall functional surface is otherwise quite complete.

Resources