Skip to main content
Glama

Cta

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: internal cascading across two to three lookup endpoints, graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment with EDGAR identifiers always returning, and the nuance that unresolved entities are stated rather than omitted in the (truncated) return semantics. This goes beyond merely restating the 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 dense and information-rich, with front-loaded usage context and type-by-type detail. However, it is extremely long and runs on with heavy parentheticals and comma-splice constructions, making it harder to parse in one pass. Every clause carries information, but the structure is not as scannable as it could be; a more structured format (bulleted identifiers per type, clearer separation of input semantics vs. output semantics) would improve clarity without losing content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity—two entity types, multiple external sources, varied input formats—the description is remarkably complete. It covers inputs, outputs, source behavior, failure modes (degradation, unresolved labels), and efficiency rationale ('replaces 2-3 manual lookups'). No output schema is present, but the description gives enough return-semantic detail (which IDs and ownership fields come back) for an agent to know what to expect. A small gap is the lack of a precise success/error envelope format, but that is minor for an entity resolution tool.

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?

Schema coverage is at 100%, so per calibration baseline this should be 3. However, the description adds significant semantics: it explains what value formats are acceptable (ticker, CIK, ISIN, or name), provides concrete examples ('AAPL', '0000320193'), warns against passing the full noun phrase for a bond issuer, and explains why trailing security-class words break the FIGI lookup. This is genuine added meaning beyond the schema fields' own descriptions.

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 queries ('What's the ticker for…', 'find the CIK for…', etc.) and immediately states the core verb-resource pair: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical identifiers. It explicitly enumerates supported types ('company', 'drug') and the identifiers each returns (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), making the tool's purpose unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings like entity_profile or 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a strong when-to-use directive ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and elaborates on edge cases such as non-equity instruments without a ticker, ISIN input routing, and graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable. While it doesn't name a specific alternative sibling, the tool's role as a prerequisite to other tools is explicitly framed, and the guidance is concrete enough for an agent to select it confidently.

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

All Cta 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 heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The entity tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) and the many Polymarket tools also blur together, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, with recognizable prefixes like cta_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_. However, conventions are mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), and variants like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence prevent a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range, and the count is especially mismatched for a server named 'Cta': only 4 tools actually concern Chicago transit, while the other 31 form a general-purpose research, prediction-market, and memory suite. The set feels like multiple unrelated servers merged together.

Completeness2/5

As a CTA server, the surface is notably incomplete: it has bus/train positions and predictions but lacks alerts, service disruptions, route listings, and station/stop metadata. The broader Pipeworx tools are extensive but appear bolted on, so the overall set has no coherent domain against which completeness can be judged.

Resources