Skip to main content
Glama

Walkscore

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: assembling a cross-source identity spine, returning figi_candidates on ambiguous matches, stating unresolved identifiers under unresolved, degrading gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI is unavailable, and cascading through multiple lookup 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with example queries and a clear opening statement of purpose, then organized by SUPPORTED TYPES. It is dense and uses heavy parenthetical nesting, which slightly hurts readability, but the length is justified by the variety of entity types and edge cases covered.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains key return semantics: each identifier carries its source label, unresolved identifiers are explicitly listed, ambiguous instrument matches yield figi_candidates, drug lookups provide RxNorm citations, and enrichment degrades gracefully. It also covers the ISIN-to-legal-entity mapping, making the tool well specified for direct 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?

The schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by illustrating accepted inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, company name, drug brand/generic), clarifying that non-equity instruments resolve via name search, and emphasizing that only the entity name should be passed without security-class suffixes.

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 queries and states a crisp purpose: resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input. It names the supported types (company and drug) and clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on identifier lookup rather than profiles or comparisons.

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 trigger: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the examples and supported types provide clear context for the intended use case.

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

All Walkscore 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinct but several clusters (ask_pipeworx family, polymarket family) have highly similar names that could cause confusion. For example, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all appear to do similar things with subtle differences. The agent would need to read descriptions carefully to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, a few are single verbs (remember, recall, forget) or have inconsistent suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta, walkscore_score). This is mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is quite high, bordering on excessive. While each tool serves a distinct purpose, the sheer number may overwhelm the agent. However, the tools cover a wide range of functionality, so the count is not unreasonable for a comprehensive data platform.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is comprehensive for querying data, conducting research, managing subscriptions, and evaluating bets. It includes meta-tools for discovery and memory. Notable gaps include user account management and direct file handling, but overall coverage is strong.

Resources