Skip to main content
Glama

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses substantial behavior: unresolved identifiers are listed under 'unresolved' rather than omitted, ambiguous instrument matches assert nothing and return candidates, and LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully when upstream sources are unavailable. It even explains that one call internally cascades through multiple lookup endpoints.

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 the purpose statement and uses useful SUPPORTED TYPES labeling, but it is very long and dense for a two-parameter tool. Several semicolon-heavy run-on sentences pack many distinct facts together, reducing scannability even though most content is valuable.

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 must carry the burden of explaining return behavior. It covers ambiguity (figi_candidates), unresolved identifiers, source-labelled IDs, and graceful degradation, which is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and how to handle partial resolution. Given the complexity of multi-source entity resolution, this is complete.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics beyond the schema, notably that company input also accepts ISIN and maps it to the issuing legal entity, and that the value must be the entity name alone. Some detail duplicates the schema's value description, which prevents a 5.

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 query examples and immediately states the core function: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers other tools require as input.' It specifies supported entity types ('company', 'drug') and clearly differentiates this resolver from downstream tools that consume the IDs.

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 description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also clarifies edge cases like ambiguous names returning figi_candidates and non-ticker instruments still resolving. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus related tools like entity_profile or compare_entities.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are some close groups: the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) require careful reading to distinguish subtle differences.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is inconsistent: some tools start with verbs (ask, compare, generate), others with nouns (inegi_indicator, entity_profile), and there is no uniform verb_noun pattern. However, within families, naming is consistent (e.g., ask_pipeworx*).

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the higher side but not excessive. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though some could be merged (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants). The count is justified by the breadth of domains covered (INEGI, Pipeworx, Polymarket, utilities).

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers a wide range of functionalities: Mexican demographic/economic data, general structured data queries, prediction market analysis, and utility tools. Minor gaps exist (e.g., limited direct API for some Mexican indicators), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the stated purpose.