Skip to main content
Glama

Data Rennes

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 mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI enrichment fails, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, explicit unresolved identifiers, source-labelled results, and internal cascading across lookup endpoints. No statement contradicts 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured: example phrasings first, then type-specific details and explicit caveats, then fallback behavior. A few phrases are somewhat redundant, such as 'which is the correct answer to an issuer name that does not identify a single bond' and 'replaces 2-3 manual lookups,' yet the density of useful information earns the length.

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, so the description compensates by explaining what callers receive: canonical identifiers with source labels, unresolved fields, figi_candidates, drug RxCUI citations, and degradation behavior. For a complex multi-endpoint resolver, this is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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?

The schema already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description goes well beyond it with examples, exact formatting requirements, the bond issuer only rule, trailing-word caveats, and ISIN-to-LEI resolution semantics. This materially helps an agent construct correct parameter values.

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 precise verb+resource: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers, with concrete example phrasings and two supported entity types. It clearly differentiates the tool's role from generic query or profile tools by positioning it as the identifier-lookup layer 'other tools require as input'.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' along with natural-language example queries and supported types. However, it does not name specific sibling tools to avoid or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls just short of full alternative routing.

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

All Data Rennes 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and several prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). While descriptions attempt to differentiate, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb-initial (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities) and noun-phrase patterns (entity_profile, dataset_info), with no consistent verb_noun structure. Naming is readable but lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The broad scope (data querying, prediction markets, company research, local open data) somewhat justifies the count, but several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the various polymarket tools).

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities including data querying, company research, prediction market analysis, and memory management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no user authentication tools beyond subscriptions), but the surface is largely comprehensive for its intended purpose.

Resources