Skip to main content
Glama

Eodhd

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and explicit `unresolved` output behavior. It also reveals that ISIN lookups resolve to the issuing legal entity, which is non-obvious behavioral context.

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 information-dense: every parenthetical covers a lookup case or edge behavior. The main purpose and 'Use FIRST' instruction appear early, but the initial string of user-query examples delays the core definition slightly.

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?

For a tool with two types and multiple upstream sources, the description covers input formats, outputs (CIK/ticker/company_name, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI+ingredient+brand), degradation behavior, and unresolved handling. No output schema exists, so this level of detail is sufficient for an agent calling 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?

Though the schema already covers both parameters at 100%, the description adds important invocation semantics: ISIN is accepted for company lookups, non-equity instruments resolve via name search, and the value description's 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' rule is expanded with a concrete bond-issuer example ('NEW YORK ST DORM AUTH' not '... revenue bonds').

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 specific verb and resource: it 'resolve[s] a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input' and enumerates the supported types ('company', 'drug'). It also differentiates itself by positioning resolution as the first step before other tools, which distinguishes it from sibling profile/compare 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?

'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' gives an explicit timing/selection rule. The description also advises on exact input phrasing (entity name only, never the full noun phrase), but it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative tools beyond the implied 'other tools.'

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

All Eodhd 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route research questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and bet_research all hunt prediction-market edges; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence do nearly the same job. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent would still struggle to pick the right tool in these clusters.

Naming Consistency2/5

Everything is snake_case, but there is no coherent pattern: some names are verb_noun (compare_entities, validate_claim), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), some are prefixed by domain (eodhd_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ai_visibility_*), and the Eodhd prefix clashes with the Pipeworx family. The conventions feel inherited from multiple unrelated codebases rather than a unified design.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is already heavy for most servers, but the real problem is that only 2 tools (eodhd_eod_prices, eodhd_fundamentals) relate to the server's stated purpose. The other 31 span Pipeworx research, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm dependency checking — a massively over-scoped grab bag for a server named 'Eodhd'.

Completeness2/5

For the nominal EODHD domain the surface is severely incomplete: no splits, dividends, options, exchanges list, or other standard EODHD endpoints — just prices and fundamentals. As a general research/data platform it is broad rather than deep, mixing a decent question-answering core with unrelated one-off utilities, so no single coherent lifecycle is fully covered.

Resources