Skip to main content
Glama

holidays

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?

The description goes far beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations by revealing ambiguity handling (returns figi_candidates rather than asserting), explicit unresolved identifiers, source-labelling of each identifier, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints. These behaviors materially affect how an agent interprets results.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with purpose and usage, which is good. However, the 'company' branch crams CIK, LEI, FIGI, ISIN, ambiguity, and degradation behavior into one sprawling parenthetical with nested clauses, making it hard to scan. The information is valuable, but it is not presented concisely.

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 return behavior, and it does so thoroughly: it names the exact identifiers returned (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), the unresolved list, candidate disambiguation, and failure fallbacks. For a multi-source tool this is complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret 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?

Schema coverage is already 100%, but the description adds critical semantic guidance: accepted identifier forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), the ISIN-to-LEI mapping nuance, and especially the negative rule to pass the issuer name only, never the full noun phrase. This is exactly the kind of parameter-level clarification that prevents invocation errors.

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 phrasings like 'What's the ticker for…' and immediately defines the action: resolve a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers. It further clarifies that these identifiers are inputs for other tools, which distinguishes it from siblings like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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' is explicit and actionable, giving a clear triggering condition. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so the when-not side is absent, but the positive guidance is strong.

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

All holidays 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools serve near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap heavily, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage all scan prediction-market opportunities. An agent reading these names and descriptions cannot reliably pick one tool without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

The names are all lower_snake_case, but the naming style is not consistent across the server: verb_noun (get_holidays, validate_claim), bare noun phrases (next_holidays, entity_profile, bet_research), is/are predicates (is_today_holiday), and separate pipeworx/polymarket prefixed groups. There are recognizable subgroups, but no coherent naming convention unifies the full tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the healthy range and the majority have nothing to do with holidays; they belong to a broader Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and subscription platform. The holiday-specific surface is only three tools buried inside a much larger, unrelated toolkit, making the server feel overloaded and mislabelled.

Completeness4/5

For the actual holiday domain the core read workflows are covered: all public holidays by country/year, today's holiday status, and upcoming holidays. A small gap is the lack of a supported-country/region listing or date-range filtering, but these are easily worked around because get_holidays returns the full year set.

Resources