Skip to main content
Glama

Currencyformat

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, returning `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, source-labelled identifiers, and internal cascading lookups.

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 densely informative, with front-loaded usage guidance and a clear type-by-type breakdown. The parenthetical asides add real behavioral detail rather than padding, though the text could be lightly restructured for readability.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description compensates by specifying return contents (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, candidates, unresolved list), input formats, edge cases like ambiguous bonds, and fallback behavior. For a complex resolver tool, this is unusually complete.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters well, with 100% coverage and detailed value guidance. The description adds supplementary meaning by mentioning ISIN as an accepted input form for company lookups and by explaining the drug type's RxCUI/ingredient/brand return structure.

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 uses a specific verb ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers'), backed by concrete example queries. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by framing the tool as the name-to-ID resolver that feeds other 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 gives an explicit trigger ('Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID') and enumerates supported entity types. It does not name specific sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the directive is actionable enough for an agent.

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

All Currencyformat 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

Multiple tool clusters have overlapping functions: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly interchangeable, deep_research overlaps with the ask_pipeworx family, and the six Polymarket tools all analyze the same domain with subtle differences. discover_tools and suggest_questions also both serve as discovery entry points, making it difficult for an agent to confidently select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but there is no uniform structural pattern. Verb_object names like format_currency and resolve_entity coexist with noun_phrases like entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage, bare verbs like remember and forget, and adjective_noun forms like recent_alerts. Cluster-specific prefixes are consistent, but the overall convention is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the set is substantially over-scoped and exceeds the suggested 3-15 range. Many tools could be consolidated, such as the three ask_pipeworx variants, the six Polymarket tools, and the two formatting utilities. The broad domain justifies some size, but the count feels inflated and will burden agents with excessive choice.

Completeness3/5

The server covers many areas thoroughly: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and research tools span lookup, profiling, comparison, and verification. However, there are notable gaps: pipeworx:// citation URIs are returned but no tool explicitly fetches or reads a record by URI, and there is no direct way to manage account-level settings beyond memory. These missing operations force agents to work around limitations.

Resources