Skip to main content
Glama

xkcd

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 already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds rich behavioral context: cascades through multiple endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit listing of unresolvable identifiers, and multiple-match behavior returning figi_candidates with an explanation of why that is correct.

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 dense with necessary information for a complex tool with two entity types and multiple identifier systems. It is front-loaded with examples and purpose. Slight deduction because it is a single dense block and some parentheticals run long, but overall every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, description covers return behavior (figi_candidates, unresolved list, source labels), edge cases (non-equity instruments, non-US issuers), fallback behavior, and input constraints. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: examples for both types ('ozempic', 'metformin'), the exact formatting requirement for bond issuers ('NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH' vs full noun phrase), and the clarification that value should be only the entity name, not the question phrase. This exceeds 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 states a specific verb ('resolve') and resource (names to canonical/official identifiers), listing concrete query phrasings. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compare_entities and entity_profile by focusing on identifier resolution.

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.' It also provides negative guidance for the 'value' parameter (never pass full noun phrases for bonds) and explains when the tool asserts nothing (multiple matches). This is strong routing and usage guidance.

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

All xkcd 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

Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, and validate_claim all serve data-lookup purposes with unclear boundaries. The three xkcd comic tools are distinct but are buried under 31 unrelated tools, making selection confusing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_first (get_comic, list_subscriptions), some are nouns (entity_profile, deep_research), some have prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and others are vague (scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt). The mixing of styles across the set makes it hard to predict naming.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools and a server name of 'xkcd', the count is wildly disproportionate; only 3 tools relate to comics. Even as a general data-access server, 34 tools is heavy and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) that add bulk.

Completeness3/5

For the actual Pipeworx data domain, the surface is fairly comprehensive: querying, grounded answers, research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis are covered. However, there are notable gaps like no fetch-by-URI tool and no xkcd search/list capability, making the set incomplete for its name and slightly incomplete for its inferred domain.

Resources