Skip to main content
Glama

Tomtom

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description is highly transparent about internal behavior: it details the cascading lookup endpoints, graceful degradation when GLEIF/OpenFIGI are unavailable, and the possibility of returning `figi_candidates` when multiple matches exist. It also discloses the return format for drugs (RxCUI, ingredient, brand) and the source mappings, going well beyond the read-only/idempotent 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 very long and densely packed with details, including numerous parenthetical explanations and edge cases. While front-loaded with purpose and usage, the verbosity might strain readability. However, the complexity of the tool justifies the length, and the structure (purpose, usage, supported types, parameters) is logical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does a good job explaining what the tool returns: it mentions returned identifiers for company (CIK, ticker, LEI, FIGI) and drug (RxCUI, ingredient, brand), as well as `figi_candidates` and `unresolved` fields. It also covers error behavior (graceful degradation) and internal cascade, but it does not fully enumerate all possible output fields or response structures, which is a minor gap.

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?

Both parameters are thoroughly explained: `type` has its enum values and meanings, and `value` is described with concrete examples for each type, including warnings about how to format bond issuer names to avoid matching failures. The description also notes specific valid input formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, brand/generic name), covering all schema properties with high precision.

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 that the tool resolves a user-spoken name to canonical identifiers, with specific examples of queries and supported entity types. It distinguishes between company and drug entities and explains how it replaces multiple manual lookups, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID,' giving direct usage guidance. It also explains when to use it over alternatives (replacing 2-3 manual lookups) and mentions graceful degradation, providing clear context for when to invoke the tool.

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

All Tomtom 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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are variants of the same router, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all operate in the same prediction-market space. The extremely detailed descriptions help an agent differentiate, but misselection risk remains real.

Naming Consistency4/5

Snake_case is used consistently and most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, discover_tools), with predictable polymarket_ and pipeworx_ family prefixes. Minor deviations exist — entity_profile and recent_alerts are noun/adjective phrases, generate_llms_txt embeds a file extension, and single-word verbs (remember, route, geocode) break the strict pattern — but overall naming is coherent.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server exceeds the comfortable range and bundles many unrelated domains: data lookup, prediction markets, geocoding/navigation, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. While every tool has a distinct purpose, the surface is heavy and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Each major cluster has strong lifecycle coverage: data lookup (router, grounded mode, deep research, discovery), company research (resolve, profile, compare, changes), prediction markets (research, arb, edges, fill risk, cross-venue spread), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts). Minor gaps exist — no direct Polymarket order placement and no explicit tool for fetching pipeworx:// URIs (left to resources) — but agents can accomplish the stated purposes.

Resources