Skip to main content
Glama

Oecd

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 readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: internal cascading through multiple lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, returning figi_candidates instead of asserting on ambiguous matches, explicit unresolved reporting, and source-labelled identifiers. No contradiction with 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 purposefully front-loaded with the core directive and supported types. It is dense and information-rich, with only minor redundancy (e.g., examples repeated in the schema description). Overall every major section earns its place.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what an agent needs: input formats, entity type coverage, ambiguity handling, unresolved outputs, failure/degradation behavior, and the fact that it replaces multiple lookups. It is complete for both supported entity types and their edge cases.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial parameter semantics: pass only the entity name, use the issuer exactly as printed, avoid trailing security-class words, and accept ticker/CIK/ISIN/company name for company type. These details prevent realistic invocation errors and exceed what the schema alone provides.

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: resolve user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers required by other tools. It supports multiple entity types (company, drug) and explicitly contrasts with what it is not (e.g., asserting a single FIGI when a name matches multiple instruments). This distinguishes it from siblings like entity_profile and 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 description gives strong when-to-use guidance: "Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID." It also clarifies that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups and explains how to handle non-equity instruments, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool beyond that.

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

All Oecd 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several near-duplicate lookup and prediction-market tools make selection ambiguous: ask_pipeworx_beta deliberately mirrors ask_pipeworx, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all target the same general 'should I bet / where is the edge' use case. The descriptions are detailed, but at the set level an agent must read extensive disambiguation essays to avoid picking the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case, and subfamilies like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and subscribe/unsubscribe are internally consistent. However, conventions vary widely: verb_noun (fetch_dataset, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and prefix-branded meta tools (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) all coexist without a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools for a server nominally called 'Oecd' vastly exceeds the scope implied by the name and crosses the 25+ too-many threshold. Many tools belong to unrelated domains such as Polymarket arbitrage, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility audits, making the set feel like a broad dumping ground rather than a focused tool server.

Completeness4/5

Within its sprawling domains the tool surface is fairly complete: lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, memory, subscriptions, alerts, and OECD dataflow search/list/fetch are all represented. There are minor gaps such as lack of direct OECD metadata descriptions or deeper navigation of the 5,708 underlying tools, but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.

Resources