Skip to main content
Glama

words

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds extensive behavioral context: cascading lookups, source labels, explicit `unresolved` field, graceful degradation when external services are down, and handling of ambiguous matches via `figi_candidates`. It goes far beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 but well-structured, with a front-loaded example list, a clear usage directive, and a dedicated section for supported types. Every sentence carries relevant information, and the verbose detail is justified by the tool's complexity. However, it could be slightly more concise without losing value.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return behavior, and it does thoroughly. It details the returned identifiers, source labeling, `unresolved` field, `figi_candidates` for ambiguity, and the internal cascade. For a complex tool with multiple entity types, this is complete and leaves no critical gaps for an agent.

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?

Although the schema covers both parameters (100% coverage), the description significantly enriches meaning. It explains acceptable inputs for `value` (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name for company; brand/generic for drug) and provides a critical usage warning about bond issuer names. This adds semantic depth beyond the schema's brief descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical identifiers required by other tools. It provides specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('name to identifiers'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 2-3 manual lookups and is the 'FIRST' step when a name needs an ID.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', giving a clear trigger condition. It also provides detailed usage instructions, such as passing only the issuer name for bonds, not the full noun phrase, and explains the supported types and their input formats. This is comprehensive guidance.

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

All words 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap between query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, and between prediction market tools like bet_research and polymarket_edges. Descriptions help differentiate, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are all snake_case but lack a consistent pattern. Some start with verbs (ask, compare, find), others are nouns (autocomplete, entity_profile), and many are long phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, scan_competitor_ai_presence). The naming feels ad-hoc and not easy to predict.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this server is over-packed for a server named 'words'. Many tools are unrelated to words (e.g., prediction markets, subscriptions, entity profiles). The scope is too broad, making it feel like a catch-all rather than a coherent set.

Completeness3/5

The word tools are limited (only 6), leaving obvious gaps for a word-focused server (e.g., no dictionary lookup, no word definitions). However, the server covers a wide range of data domains through meta-tools like ask_pipeworx, which compensates but makes the purpose unclear.

Resources