Skip to main content
Glama

Statbel Be

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It discloses that the tool cascades through multiple internal lookup endpoints, that LEI/FIGI enrichment degrades gracefully (the EDGAR identifiers still return), that ambiguous matches produce figi_candidates, that unresolved identifiers are explicitly under `unresolved`, that each identifier is labelled with its source, and that the ISIN-to-LEI mapping covers non-US issuers. These are behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint alone.

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 every sentence carries substantive information: examples, supported sources, handle with ambiguity, degradation behavior, and input conventions. No fluff. However, the structure is a single dense paragraph; breaking it into bullets or sub-sections would improve scanability, but given the complexity the length is justified. It's front-loaded with the 'use FIRST' directive.

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 that handles two distinct entity types and three kinds of identifiers, the description covers the what-it-does, when-to-use, how-it-handles edge cases (unresolved, ambiguity, low-availability), and exactly what input formats are accepted. There is no output schema, so the description compensates by describing the response patterns (figi_candidates, unresolved, source labels). This is as complete as an agent needs to correctly invoke the tool in varied scenarios.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters (type enum, value description). The description adds actionable semantics beyond that: for a bond, it instructs to pass the issuer exactly as printed and explicitly warns not to include trailing security-class words, because the FIGI lookup matches instrument names. It also explains what the `type` values map to in terms of source systems. This level of detailed usage guidance is exactly what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 opens with concrete user-phrase examples ('What's the ticker for…'), then states the core action: 'resolve a user-spoken NAME to the canonical/official identifiers'. It names the resource explicitly (identifier lookup for company/drug) and distinguishes itself from siblings by saying 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', making its purpose unmistakable. It also enumerates supported entity types, so an agent knows exactly what it covers.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID', which is a clear trigger condition. It also details that the tool replaces 2-3 manual lookups and explains the types. It does not directly reference sibling tools like compare_entities or entity_profile, nor state when to prefer them, but the 'FIRST' directive plus the description of what it resolves is sufficient guidance for most selection scenarios.

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

All Statbel Be 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several clusters of overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve broad data-query purposes, while the six Polymarket-related tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap in scope. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent would frequently struggle to choose the correct tool among near-synonyms.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the underlying pattern is inconsistent: list_*/get_* for Statbel, ask_* for query routers, noun-heavy names like entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and recent_alerts, plus bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe. It remains readable, but there is no single predictable verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the set exceeds the range where each tool clearly earns its place, and the scope is wildly broad: Belgian statistics, general data lookup, prediction markets, npm dependency checks, memory, subscriptions, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility. A server named 'Statbel Be' carries 31 tools unrelated to that name, which makes the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the Statbel domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: list_datasets, get_dataset, list_views, and get_view only return metadata — there is no tool to actually fetch the statistical data values. For the broader Pipeworx data-access domain, coverage is more complete, but the server's stated purpose is under-served and leaves core workflows at a dead end.

Resources