Skip to main content
Glama

Performance Review

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: ambiguity yields figi_candidates rather than a guess, unresolvable identifiers are explicitly listed under unresolved, enrichment degrades gracefully when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and the tool cascades through multiple lookup endpoints. 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.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with examples and the key 'Use FIRST' instruction, but the 'company' explanation becomes a very long, heavily parenthetical sentence that is hard to scan. While most content earns its place, the structure makes the tool more difficult to parse than necessary.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers input semantics, supported types, edge cases, failure behavior, and what is returned for ambiguous names (figi_candidates) and unresolved identifiers (unresolved). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call it 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 substantial value: it explains what value means for each type, gives accepted input forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), and warns against passing full noun phrases like 'revenue bonds' because trailing security-class words will not match. This goes well beyond the schema's short field descriptions.

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 clearly states the verb (resolve) and the resource (user-spoken names to canonical identifiers), and backs it with concrete example phrasings. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by saying it supplies IDs other tools require as input and 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.'

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 usage context: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' and enumerates the two supported entity types with their accepted inputs. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, but the guidance is clear enough for selection.

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

All Performance Review 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy adjacent territory: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions with only subtle differences in grounding and breadth, and discover_tools overlaps with suggest_questions. The prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, bet_research) each have distinct mechanics but a less careful agent could easily misfire between them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), but there are notable exceptions: performance_review_generate reverses the order, entity_profile is noun_noun, and recall/remember/forget are bare verbs. The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes help group families, but the mixed styles prevent a higher score.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools this is a heavy surface for one MCP server, exceeding the 25+ threshold where agents struggle to discover and choose among options. The breadth is understandable given the many subdomains (data lookups, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback), but the count still feels like tool sprawl rather than a tightly scoped set.

Completeness4/5

As a data/research/prediction-market platform the surface is remarkably complete: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, visibility audits, subscriptions, memory, and feedback loops are all covered. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct tool for bulk exports or for editing subscriptions, and some meta-tools duplicate discovery—but agents can accomplish the core workflows without dead ends.

Resources