Skip to main content
Glama

Isin

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds significant behavioral context: graceful degradation when LEI/FIGI enrichment fails, the internal multi-endpoint cascade, the behavior when a name matches multiple instruments (asserts nothing, returns figi_candidates), and the explicit reporting of unresolved identifiers under `unresolved`. This goes far beyond 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 every sentence carries meaningful information—usage triggers, supported types, degradation behavior, matching ambiguity, and input formatting rules. It is front-loaded with the primary use case and examples. While not terse, the density justifies the length; it could be slightly tightened but remains effective.

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 comprehensively covers what the tool returns: CIK, ticker, company_name, LEI, ownership data, FIGI, RxCUI, ingredient, brand, and the `unresolved` field. It also explains edge cases like non-US issuers and non-equity instruments. For a tool with this complexity and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete.

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 greatly enriches both parameters. For `type`, it details the cross-source identity spine and supported types. For `value`, it provides precise formatting guidance, including the crucial caveat about passing only the issuer name for bonds (not the full noun phrase with 'revenue bonds'), and gives examples like 'AAPL', '0000320193', 'ozempic'. This is far more than the schema conveys.

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 ('resolve') and resource ('user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers'), with explicit examples of the input patterns it handles. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying the supported entity types (company, drug) and the identifier systems (CIK, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI), leaving no ambiguity about its role.

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 an explicit usage directive: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for edge cases (e.g., validate_isin for ID validation), leaving some room for inference.

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

All Isin 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there are overlapping clusters: the three ask_pipeworx variants and multiple polymarket analysis tools can cause selection ambiguity. Descriptions help, yet boundaries between entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and ask_pipeworx require careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names almost all follow snake_case with verb-noun or verb-phrase structure (ask_pipeworx, validate_isin, list_subscriptions), and family prefixes like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are consistent. Minor deviations include one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) and adjective-noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile).

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is well above the 25-tool threshold that typically feels heavy, even though the Pipeworx platform is broad in scope. The server named 'Isin' exposes a large toolkit far beyond its apparent identifier-focused purpose, making the count feel excessive.

Completeness4/5

The broader data-access, research, subscription, and utility workflows are well covered, including discovery, grounded queries, entity profiles, comparisons, and claim validation. Minor gaps include the lack of direct pipeworx:// URI reading and ISIN issuer resolution, but agents can work around these.

Resources