Skip to main content
Glama

Tarot Draw

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?

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: cascading internal lookups, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, explicit `unresolved` reporting, `figi_candidates` on ambiguous matches, and source-labeling of every identifier. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense and every sentence carries useful information, but it is a long, nearly unbroken block. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage guidance, yet could be better structured with clear separation of company vs. drug behavior.

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 supported types, and absence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete: it covers ambiguity, failure behavior, fallback semantics, input forms, and the scope of identifiers returned. 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: accepted input kinds (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name), ISIN-to-LEI resolution semantics, and the critical caveat to pass only the issuer name for bonds. This goes well beyond the schema's 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 opens with concrete user phrasings and a crisp verb+resource statement: resolve a user-spoken NAME to canonical/official identifiers. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as the first stop when a name needs to become 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 explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving clear usage context. It does not, however, name any specific sibling tool as the alternative for other cases, so it falls just short of a fully explicit when-not-to-use guideline.

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

All Tarot Draw 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

Multiple tool families have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, suggest_questions and discover_tools are near-duplicates, and ai_visibility_check is a subset of scan_competitor_ai_presence. The five polymarket_* tools are heavily overlapping in purpose and rely on long descriptions to distinguish them, which an agent must read carefully to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and there are helpful prefixes (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*), but the verb/noun ordering is inconsistent: verb-first names (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, scan_dependency) sit alongside noun-first names (bet_research, entity_profile, recent_changes) and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember). Sub-families are internally consistent, but the set as a whole follows no single convention.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is over the 'too many' threshold, and the scope is a grab-bag rather than a focused server: data research, prediction-market analysis, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, memory utilities, subscriptions, and exactly one tarot tool. The server is named 'Tarot Draw' yet 31 of 32 tools serve a completely different purpose, making the count wildly mismatched to the apparent identity.

Completeness2/5

For the inferred Pipeworx data/prediction-market domain the coverage is genuinely deep — ask/grounded/deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, validation, subscriptions, alerts, edge tracking, and arbitrage all exist. But for the stated purpose ('Tarot Draw'), the surface is one draw tool with no deck details, spreads, reading history, or reversal support, and the data tools' domain is so diffuse that an agent cannot rely on the set forming a coherent workflow.

Resources