Skip to main content
Glama

Colorado Information Marketplace

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description goes far beyond this by disclosing rich behavioral traits: unresolved identifiers are 'stated explicitly under `unresolved` rather than omitted,' ambiguous matches return `figi_candidates` and assert nothing, LEI/FIGI enrichment 'degrades gracefully' if upstream sources fail, and each call 'cascades through several lookup endpoints internally.' No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with examples and the core purpose, and most sentences add important behavioral detail. However, the company type section is extremely dense, with long parentheticals and nested clauses that could be split for readability. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity but not maximally clean.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so: RxCUI + ingredient + brand for drugs, labeled identifiers, unresolved fields, and figi_candidates for ambiguous matches. It also covers input permutations (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), graceful degradation, and both company and drug workflows, leaving no obvious gap an agent would need to call the tool correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema. It provides concrete examples for value ('ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name'), and critically clarifies pass boundary: 'Pass the ENTITY NAME ONLY... never the question's full noun phrase,' illustrating with a bond issuer example. It also explains the semantic difference between entity types and how ISIN maps to a legal entity, enriching the schema's terse field definitions.

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 highly specific verb and resource: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It enumerates concrete example queries and two supported entity types (company, drug), and details what identifiers are produced (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), making the tool's role unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like compare_entities or entity_profile even without naming them.

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 instruction 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' gives a clear, implementable rule for when to invoke the tool. The description also notes that it 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups,' reinforcing its role as a primary resolver. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives such as entity_profile or compare_entities, so it stops short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

All Colorado Information Marketplace 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile / recent_changes / compare_entities, and a half-dozen prediction-market tools. The descriptions are unusually detailed and mostly steer an agent correctly, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx and the prediction-market tools still require careful reading to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but the conventions vary: many are verb_noun (resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim), some are bare nouns (datasets, metadata, query), some are bare imperatives (remember, forget, subscribe), and there are separate prefix families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*. It is readable and consistent in style, but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and the set is not tightly scoped: only datasets, metadata, and query directly relate to the stated Colorado Information Marketplace purpose. The bulk are Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities, making the server feel like a broad platform bolted onto a state-data catalog.

Completeness4/5

For the core read-only lifecycle of the Colorado data catalog, search (datasets), schema inspection (metadata), and data retrieval (query) are covered. Minor gaps exist elsewhere: there is no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation record directly, and some utilities like generate_llms_txt or scan_dependency are unrelated to the server's stated purpose, but most cited workflows can still complete.

Resources