Skip to main content
Glama

Trade 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive). It details the cascading internal lookup behavior, graceful degradation if GLEIF or OpenFIGI is unavailable, and the handling of multiple matches (returns figi_candidates instead of asserting). It also discloses that each identifier is labelled with its source and that unresolvable identifiers are explicitly listed under 'unresolved'. This is rich behavioral context that informs an agent's expectations.

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 well-structured, starting with example queries and the core purpose, then diving into type-specific details. Every paragraph adds necessary context given the tool's complexity (two entity types, multiple data sources, edge cases). While it could be slightly more concise, the density is justified by the tool's functionality, and the front-loading of purpose and usage is effective.

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 with two required params, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, behavioral traits, parameter details, and edge cases (graceful degradation, multiple matches, non-equity instruments). An agent has enough information to call it correctly without additional context. The description even specifies what the tool returns (identifier mappings, candidates, unresolved) despite the lack of an output schema.

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 description significantly enriches the schema. For the 'type' param, it explains the two enum values ('company' and 'drug') and their respective data sources. For 'value', it provides detailed instructions on acceptable formats (ticker, CIK, ISIN, name) and a critical caution: do not pass trailing security-class words for bonds. Even though the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds essential nuances that prevent misuse, fully compensating for any schema gaps.

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 the precise purpose: resolving a user-spoken name to canonical/official identifiers needed by other tools. It opens with example queries (ticker, CIK, LEI, RxCUI) and a clear verb-resource framing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning as the required first step for name-to-ID conversion, which none of the listed siblings (e.g., entity_profile, compare_entities) cover.

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 guidance is given: 'Use FIRST whenever you have a name but need an ID.' It also explains what input format to pass (entity name only, not full noun phrase) with a concrete example for bonds. While it does not name specific alternative tools, the 'use first' directive and the rationale that it replaces 2-3 manual lookups make the usage context unambiguous.

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

All Trade 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

A número of tools form near- overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_ipeworx_grounded, and deeep_research all answer questions, while bet_research, polmarget_edges, and polmarget_arbitrage all scan for betting opportunities. The two ask_ipeworx variants are currently identical, and discover_tools vs sgget_questions serve the same discovery role. Long descriptions help but do not remove the misselection risk among 34 overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools use clear snake_case verb_noun names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, subscribe, validate_claim) with helpful domain prefixes like polmarget_* and trade_*. A few standalones like forget/recall/remembber and recent_alerts break the pattern slightly, but the style is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels overloaded. The surface could be consolidated: four ask_ipeworx variants, five polmarget-specific tools, three memory tools, and three company-profile-style tools carry significant redundancy. Inclusions like generate_lms_txt and scan_dependency also broaden the scope well beyond the Trade Intel mandate.

Completeness4/5

For its broad data-intelligence domain the surface is quite complete: data lookup, grounded fact-checking, entity profiles and comparison, recent changes, prediction-market research with fill-risk verification, trade statistics, memory, and subscription lifecycle all exist with no dead ends. Minor gaps remain (e.g. no dedicated trade time-series other than the US macro dashboard, and no direct tool-listing aside from discover_tools), but agents can work around them.

Resources