Skip to main content
Glama

advice

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses graceful degradation when GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, source-labeled identifiers, explicit unresolved fields, and the multi-endpoint cascade. These non-obvious behaviors are exactly what an agent needs to trust and interpret the result.

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 definition is front-loaded with trigger examples and a crisp 'Use FIRST' rule, and the supported-types structure aids scanning. However, some sentences are dense parenthetical chains, notably the company entry, which increases cognitive load even though every clause carries meaningful information.

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 complex multi-source lookup with no output schema, the description covers input formats, supported types, result contents, ambiguity behavior, source attribution, failure fallbacks, and scope limits. An agent can determine what it will receive and how to handle partial or ambiguous resolution.

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 already 100%, but the description adds substantial value: the value parameter gets input normalization rules (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), negative examples like never passing the full noun phrase, and concrete examples; type gets detailed semantics for 'company' and 'drug' with their respective result content. This far exceeds the 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 and resource: resolve a user-spoken NAME into canonical/official identifiers that other tools require as input. It enumerates trigger phrases and distinguishes itself from downstream tools that need IDs, making its role unmistakable.

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?

It gives an explicit directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and lists clear trigger phrasings. It also explains when the tool intentionally returns candidates rather than asserting a match. It does not name sibling alternatives or provide when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All advice 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
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family is a major confusion source: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research heavily overlap with the base router. polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage and discover_tools vs suggest_questions also have fuzzy boundaries, though long descriptions partially mitigate the overlap.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are lowercase snake_case, and most follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_claim, resolve_entity, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt). A few bare verbs (remember, recall, forget) and noun-style names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) deviate slightly, but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy and spans several unrelated domains: Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, advice slips, npm dependency checks, and llms.txt generation. The count is inflated by near-duplicate research routers and disconnected outliers like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency, making the set feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research and prediction-market surfaces are quite complete (ask, grounded, deep research, entity profile, compare, resolve, validate, subscriptions with full lifecycle, memory with save/recall/delete). However, the server is named 'advice' yet the advice domain only has three thin tools (get/search/random) with no other operations, and the mixed domains leave obvious dead ends for any single stated purpose.

Resources