Skip to main content
Glama

Worms

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` labeling, source-labeled identifiers, and internal multi-endpoint cascading. No contradiction with annotations.

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 description is information-dense but is one long, run-on paragraph with deeply nested parentheticals and repeated clauses. It front-loads useful examples and use-first guidance, but the structure makes it harder to parse than necessary. It earns its content but not its formatting.

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. It does so thoroughly: supported types, accepted input forms, returned identifiers, source labels, unresolved handling, graceful degradation, and internal cascading. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explicitly listing ISIN as an accepted company input, giving canonical examples like 'CH0038863350', and clarifying that drugs accept brand or generic names. This pushes it above baseline.

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 trigger phrases and states the core function: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers'. It names supported types ('company', 'drug') and specific output identifiers (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), making it clearly distinguishable from profile or comparison tools like entity_profile and compare_entities.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', which is strong when-to-use guidance. However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when NOT to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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

All Worms 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have functionally overlapping purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, which currently behave identically. The many prediction-market tools are each distinct but still leave boundaries that require careful reading, and the query/research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, potentially validate_claim) have an ease of being confused. Fine verbal descriptions reduce but do not eliminate the ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern, such as resolve_entity, get_classification, and list_subscriptions. However, the set is inconsistent overall: it mixes single verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style names (entity_profile, recent_alerts), and several prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). It's readable but not a coherent, uniformly applied convention throughout.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools in one server is well beyond the generally well-scoped 3–15 range. The server appears to bundle several unrelated domains together—WoRMS taxonomy, Pipeworx data research, Polymarket analysis, memory utilities, and subscriptions—creating avoidable cognitive load and making selection more difficult. Splitting into targeted servers would greatly improve the interface.

Completeness2/5

The server is named 'Worms' and includes a WoRMS taxonomy subdomain, but that subdomain only supports searching, classification, and common names—the rest of the marine taxonomy surface is missing (e.g., direct AphiaID record lookup, distributions, synonyms, hierarchical children). The remainder of the tools serve an entirely different data-research purpose, so the server is incomplete relative to its name AND the bundled extra domains add confusion rather than a coherent cohesive coverage.

Resources