Skip to main content
Glama

fuiwanted

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. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. v1 supports \"company\"."New value: +"Entity type: \"company\" or \"drug\"."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "drug"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker, CIK, or company name (e.g., \"AAPL\", \"0000320193\", \"Apple\")."New value: +"For company: ticker (AAPL), CIK (0000320193), or name. For drug: brand or generic name (e.g., \"ozempic\", \"metformin\")."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses internal cascading lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguity handling via figi_candidates, explicit listing of unresolved identifiers, and source-labelling of resolved IDs. This is detailed behavioral context with no contradiction to 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 almost every sentence earns its place by conveying distinct usage or behavioral facts. It is front-loaded with user-intent examples and routing instruction, and organized by supported type. A little trimming could be done, but it is dense rather than bloated.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the critical return behaviors an agent needs: unresolved identifiers are explicitly reported, ambiguous matches produce figi_candidates, identifiers carry source labels, and EDGAR results still return when enrichment sources fail. For a complex multi-backend tool, this is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable semantic guidance: the value parameter's 'ENTITY NAME ONLY' rule, the issuer-vs-instrument distinction for bonds, and the ISIN-to-LEI legal-entity mapping. This clearly goes beyond the schema's terse parameter 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?

The description opens with concrete user utterances and defines a specific verb+resource: resolving a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI). It enumerates supported types and explicitly contrasts with the need to pick from figi_candidates, making it clear what the tool does and how it differs from generic lookups.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' which is strong routing guidance. It provides rich examples and notes that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups, but it does not name sibling tools that should be used instead in specific situations, so it falls just short of full exclusions guidance.

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

All fuiwanted 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

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded form a confusing cluster—beta currently behaves identically to the stable router. The six polymarket_* tools also share overlapping boundaries (edges vs. arbitrage vs. research vs. fill risk), requiring deep reading to select correctly.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are some coherent families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions, remember/recall/forget), but the overall style is mixed: verb-first names like compare_entities sit next to noun-first names like entity_profile and recent_changes. Everything is snake_case, so it is readable, just not driven by a single consistent convention.

Tool Count2/5

31 tools is too many for a single MCP surface, and each carries a very dense description. The server is essentially several different products bundled together: data access, deep research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, and utilities.

Completeness4/5

The data/research workflows are deeply covered: simple queries, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, company profiles, recent changes, claim validation, and discovery. Minor gaps exist—no actual order placement for prediction-market trades, no subscription editing, and limited full-catalog browsing for the 5,596 underlying tools.

Resources