Skip to main content
Glama

Elexon

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: internal cascade across lookup endpoints, graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment, ambiguous-match behavior returning figi_candidates, and unresolved identifiers being stated instead of omitted. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long because the tool is complex, but every section earns its place: examples first, use-first guidance early, then compact type rules. It is structured and information-dense without repetition.

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 covers return semantics per type: canonical CIK/ticker/LEI/FIGI outputs, figi_candidates for ambiguous matches, unresolved field behavior, RxCUI output for drugs, and source attribution. Nothing needed for selection or invocation is missing.

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 100% but the description still adds crucial semantics: accepted identifier formats, the exact-issuer-name-only rule for bonds, the distinction between ticker vs name matching, and type-specific drug examples. This goes well beyond the schema 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?

Clearly states the tool resolves user-spoken entity names to canonical IDs for other tools. It enumerates concrete examples and supported types in detail, distinguishing its lookup role from the sibling set.

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?

Explicitly says to use first when a name is known but an ID is needed, and lists valid inputs for each type. It does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or give when-not-to-use 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 Elexon 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research heavily overlap as high-level routing entry points, and the five Polymarket tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, bet_research) cover closely related concerns. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent can easily select the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: verb-first names (query_dataset, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexist with noun-phrase names (system_demand, entity_profile, recent_changes), and prefix families are applied inconsistently (elexon_* and polymarket_* exist, but bet_research, generation_by_fuel, and system_demand have no prefix). The pattern is understandable but not predictable enough to be considered consistent.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface, and many tools are orthogonal to the nominal Elexon scope: memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation. The count forces significant discovery overhead and makes the set feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The Elexon core is solid: elexon_list_datasets plus query_dataset covers all 84 BMRS datasets, with direct shortcuts for system prices, generation by fuel, and system demand. The broader Pipeworx side also covers research, entity resolution, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions without obvious dead ends, though a few minor gaps exist such as limited non-npm dependency scanning and no direct Elexon-specific tools for every dataset family.

Resources