Skip to main content
Glama

Abn Lookup

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable transparency about internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, source labels on every identifier, and the FIGI candidate behavior. It also clarifies that non-equity instruments like bonds resolve via name search rather than ticker. These behavioral details go far beyond the annotations and help an agent anticipate real outcomes.

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 dense and long, but every segment earns its place given the tool's complexity and the many identifier domains. It is front-loaded with examples, the core directive is early ('Use FIRST'), and supplementary technical detail is grouped logically. It could be tightened slightly, but it remains a high-value, well-structured explanation rather than padding.

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 and two required parameters, this description is extremely complete: it covers input forms, output identifiers, candidate behavior, source attribution, unresolved handling, graceful degradation, internal cascading, and even the tricky case of non-US/ISIN-linked legal entities. Given the complexity of cross-source entity resolution, little is missing for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.

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% and the schema already describes each parameter clearly, but the description and schema together add substantial meaning: for `value`, the twist about passing only the issuer name exactly as printed and not trailing security-class words is critical disambiguation not inferable from the schema. For `type`, the description explains what each enum value returns across sources. This goes well beyond a baseline 3 and meaningfully prevents misuse.

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 a rich set of natural-language examples ('What's the ticker for...', 'find the CIK for...') and immediately states the core purpose: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical identifiers required by other tools. It explicitly enumerates supported types and outputs across multiple domains (SEC CIK/ticker, GLEIF LEI, OpenFIGI FIGI, RxNorm RxCUI), which distinguishes it clearly from any sibling by the verb 'resolve' plus the identifier resources.

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?

It provides explicit usage direction: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also states where alternatives fit based on the type enum (company vs drug), and gives exclusion-style guidance: when a name matches multiple instruments, it returns figi_candidates rather than asserting, which is 'the correct answer to an issuer name that does not identify a single bond.' This is unusually actionable for when-to-use and what-to-expect.

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

All Abn Lookup 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear or overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle factual lookup/research tasks. The five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also overlap enough that an agent could easily pick the wrong entry point despite verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and generally descriptive, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun-first (abn_lookup, entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are used inconsistently. It is readable but not a clean, predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server named 'Abn Lookup' — most of the surface is a broad data-research platform with prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and web utilities. The count could fit a large platform, but under this server name and with several near-duplicate entry points, it feels bloated.

Completeness4/5

For a read-only lookup/research server, coverage is strong: ABR lookups, entity resolution, single-query research, grounded verification, deep research, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all represented. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no ACN search-by-name, no order execution), but no core workflow dead-ends.

Resources