Skip to main content
Glama

Okx

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 indicate readOnly and idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: cascades through multiple lookup endpoints, degrades gracefully when enrichment sources are unavailable, returns figi_candidates on ambiguity, and explicitly reports unresolved identifiers rather than omitting them. This gives the agent an accurate model of what to expect.

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 and dense, but nearly every sentence carries useful behavioral or semantic information. It is front-loaded with trigger examples and a clear mission, then supports that with type-specific details. It could be better structured with paragraphs or bullet-like separation, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with 2 params, no output schema, and notable edge cases, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers accepted values, failure/ambiguity behavior, unsupported identifier scenarios, source attribution, and fallback behavior. An agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the result.

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 adds major practical meaning beyond the schema. It provides examples ('AAPL', 'CH0038863350'), explains that the value should be the entity name only and never the full noun phrase, and details how ISINs map to legal entities via GLEIF. This level of disambiguation is essential for correct invocation.

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 very specific goal: resolving user-spoken names to canonical/official identifiers that other tools require. It enumerates concrete trigger phrases, lists supported entity types, and explicitly names the identifier outputs (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ticker, entity_profile, or instruments, which are not name-to-ID resolvers.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains what inputs are accepted for each type and clarifies edge cases like bonds and ISINs. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the 'when' guidance is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

All Okx 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes OKX exchange tools with a large set of Pipeworx data query tools and prediction market tools. Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all answer questions but with different modes. OKX tools like ticker and tickers are clear but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: OKX tools use single nouns or underscores (ticker, order_book), Pipeworx tools use verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), and prediction market tools use prefixed names (polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research). No consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is excessive for a coherent server. The scope is unclear—combining exchange, data lookup, and prediction market tools into one server results in a cluttered surface.

Completeness2/5

The server tries to cover too many domains. OKX coverage is decent, but the inclusion of many unrelated tools (e.g., generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) makes the set feel incomplete for any single purpose. Gaps exist in each sub-domain due to the broad scope.

Resources