API Acre

research.organization-evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a current supplier and organization evidence report from official GLEIF legal-entity, USAspending prime-contract, SEC filing-activity, and OFAC Entity records, with bounded source-specific coverage for procurement research and no identity, linkage, risk, or compliance verdict.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`legal_name`	Yes	Organization legal or trading name used independently across official GLEIF, USAspending, SEC, and OFAC organization records
`country_code`	No	Optional ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 filter applied only to GLEIF candidates
`sec_identifier`	No	Optional SEC ticker or CIK; when absent, the exact organization name is resolved against the SEC company directory

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Structured Official supplier evidence report result
`meta`	Yes
`service`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`request_id`	Yes	Unique request identifier

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 18, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / data / description

Previous value: -"Structured Official organization evidence bundle result"New value: +"Structured Official supplier evidence report result"

Changed7 schema fields changedAug 17, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / checkout_path
```
Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^/try/",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / executes_automatically
```
Added value: +{
+  "const": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / handoff_path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Free full contract and spend-capped command handoff; reading it does not execute or purchase the follow-up.",
+  "pattern": "^/catalog/",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / handoff_payment_required
```
Added value: +{
+  "const": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / maximum_atomic_usdc
```
Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^[1-9][0-9]*$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / properties / sample_path
```
Added value: +{
+  "pattern": "^/samples/",
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}
```

changedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_actions / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "service",
-  "title",
-  "reason",
-  "method",
-  "path",
-  "price",
-  "input_template",
-  "use_output",
-  "authorization_required"
-]New value: +[
+  "service",
+  "title",
+  "reason",
+  "method",
+  "path",
+  "price",
+  "input_template",
+  "use_output",
+  "handoff_path",
+  "checkout_path",
+  "sample_path",
+  "maximum_atomic_usdc",
+  "handoff_payment_required",
+  "executes_automatically",
+  "authorization_required"
+]

AddedAug 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds value by stating the report is 'current', includes 'bounded source-specific coverage', and explicitly states what it does NOT provide: 'no identity, linkage, risk, or compliance verdict'. This extra clarity on scope and limitations goes beyond the 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 a single sentence that front-loads the main action and sources. It is relatively concise but dense with information. It could be slightly more readable by breaking into two sentences, but it earns its content without waste.

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 tool aggregates data from multiple sources and has an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: sources, coverage boundedness, and what is excluded (no verdicts). It does not detail the output structure, but the output schema presumably handles that. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The schema descriptions for legal_name, country_code, and sec_identifier are clear and sufficient. The description adds no additional parameter context.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves a 'current supplier and organization evidence report' from specific official sources (GLEIF, USAspending, SEC, OFAC). The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'evidence report' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like research.lei-entity-search or research.sec-company-evidence, which are individual source lookups; the differentiation is implied by being a composite report but not stated.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description mentions 'bounded source-specific coverage for procurement research', which provides a usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use individual source tools or other research tools). No 'when not to use' or 'alternatives' are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer.

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

All API Acre tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?