Skip to main content
Glama

Pharma Intel

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial context: graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, ambiguous matches returning figi_candidates without asserting a result, source-labelled identifiers, and explicit unresolved fields. It also reveals that the call cascades through multiple lookup endpoints internally. 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 densely informative, and it is front-loaded with user-like queries and the 'Use FIRST' directive before moving into type-specific details. A few example queries could be trimmed, but the verbosity is largely operational rather than filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying what is returned (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI, ingredient, brand), how ambiguity is handled, how unresolved identifiers are surfaced, and what happens when upstream services fail. An agent has enough to invoke the tool and interpret its results 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?

Although the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds high-value semantics beyond it: for value it instructs passing the ENTITY NAME ONLY, warns that trailing security-class words match nothing for bonds, and details accepted forms (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand/generic name). This meaningfully prevents common agent errors.

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 names a specific action ('resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers') and a clear resource scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning this as the first step that feeds 'other tools require as input'. It also enumerates supported entity types (company and drug) and gives concrete query examples.

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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID' and explains what kinds of inputs are acceptable. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it misses the full when/when-not/alternatives guidance needed for a 5.

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

All Pharma Intel 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within the same domain (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs ask_pipeworx_beta are differentiated by groundedness/beta status; polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_fill_risk each target discovery vs arbitrage vs execution risk). The descriptions are highly detailed, eliminating ambiguity about when to use each.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and most follow a verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, search_, validate_), but a few are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts). The style is readable and predictable, though not perfectly uniform in the verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped, especially given the 'Pharma Intel' name that suggests a focused pharma domain. Many tools are general-purpose (prediction markets, memory, subscription management, feedback) unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making it feel like a grab bag rather than a cohesive set.

Completeness4/5

The pharma-specific tools cover drug profiles, safety, pipeline scans, catalysts, indication landscapes, and sponsor diligence – a solid lifecycle coverage. The broader data/query/prediction-market tools also feel complete for their respective sub-domains. The only minor gaps are niche operations (e.g., updating a subscription), but these are not critical to the core workflows.

Resources