Skip to main content
Glama

Acled

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. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."New value: +"For 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."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the bar for additional context is lower. The description goes well beyond this by disclosing ambiguity behavior (returns figi_candidates rather than asserting), explicit unresolved fields, source labeling, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and internal cascading through multiple endpoints. This is rich behavioral context an agent needs.

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 and dense, but it is front-loaded with purpose and usage guidance, then organizes remaining detail under SUPPORTED TYPES and explicit behavioral notes. Most sentences earn their place despite some run-on parentheticals. It could be tightened or structured with more subparagraphs, but it remains effective.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains inputs, resolution sources, outputs (RxCUI, CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI), ambiguity handling, unresolved identifiers, and failure degradation. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret its results in common cases.

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, but the description significantly enriches parameter meaning. It details accepted company inputs (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), explains how ISINs resolve to legal entities, and gives crucial value-level guidance such as passing the issuer name exactly as printed and never including trailing security-class words. This directly prevents common mis-invocations.

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 and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It also clearly delineates the two supported entity types and scopes the tool as the primary name-to-ID lookup, which separates it conceptually from sibling research/profile tools.

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?

The description explicitly says to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which is strong, actionable usage guidance. It also gives input-form examples for both company and drug types. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the guidance is otherwise clear enough to route an agent correctly.

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

All Acled 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all serve similar data retrieval needs. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap in providing company information. Polymarket tools also have overlapping analysis functions. This can cause confusion for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent in style and convention. Some use underscores (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single words (forget, recall), and many lack a clear verb_noun pattern (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges). This mixture of naming conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad scope covering multiple domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, ACLED events, npm scanning, memory, etc.). However, some areas have only one or two tools, which feels sparse, and the overall set could be trimmed or better organized.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For ACLED, only search and count tools exist without any update/delete capabilities. For Pipeworx, the tools are heavily read-focused with no apparent write operations. The broad scope makes completeness hard to assess, but some obvious lifecycle operations are missing.

Resources