Skip to main content
Glama

Ssb No

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it explains graceful degradation of LEI/FIGI enrichment when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, the behavior when a name matches multiple instruments (returns figi_candidates instead of asserting), how unresolved identifiers are explicitly listed under `unresolved`, and that internal calls cascade through multiple endpoints. It also mentions the ISIN-to-LEI mapping for non-US issuers, adding context not present in annotations. No contradiction with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, or idempotentHint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Though long, the description is densely packed with actionable information. It front-loads the purpose and usage pointer, then structures by supported type, and includes precise examples and caveats. Every sentence adds value; no fluff or repetition. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (multiple identifier types, cross-source enrichment, two entity kinds) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers expected returns (identifiers with source labels, unresolved field, figi_candidates) and key behaviors. It also clarifies assumptions about input format and partial failures. An agent has everything needed to invoke 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 100%, and the description enriches both parameters substantially. For `type`, it explains the two enums and what each resolves. For `value`, it provides detailed semantic guidance: what to pass for companies (ticker, CIK, name) and drugs (brand/generic), plus critical edge-case instructions for bonds (pass issuer exactly as printed, avoid trailing security-class words). This goes far beyond the schema description.

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 a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like entity_profile or compare_entities by focusing on name-to-ID resolution and explicitly saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' The supported types (company, drug) and the identifier outputs (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI, RxCUI) are detailed.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It gives example queries, lists accepted input formats for each type, and even includes negative examples (e.g., for bonds, pass only the issuer name, not trailing security-class words). It clearly implies that this tool is the entry point before other tools, and covers fallback behavior for unavailable services.

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

All Ssb No 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with detailed descriptions that explain when to use which. Overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded are explicitly differentiated by use case (casual vs high-stakes). The Polymarket tools are highly specialized and non-overlapping.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive terms (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim). There is no mixing of camelCase or other conventions, making the names predictable and easy to parse.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is above the typical 3-15 range, but it is justified by the server's broad scope covering multiple domains (SEC, FDA, FRED, prediction markets, etc.) and includes meta-tools for discovery and monitoring. Each tool seems necessary for the overall functionality.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers a comprehensive range of operations: data querying, entity profiles, comparisons, monitoring, memory, search, and even feedback. It includes both general-purpose and specialized tools, leaving no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of authoritative data retrieval and analysis.

Resources