Resolve a real-world entity across regulated datasets and return its canonical identity plus all linked identifiers (ticker, CIK, UEI, DUNS, NPI). Use to cross-walk a name to its federal/SEC/health identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Entity name or ticker |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It describes the action but omits behavior on failure, required permissions, or side effects. As a read-like operation, it does not confirm non-destructive nature or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence of 26 words, front-loaded with main action and specific output identifiers. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, description lists returned identifiers (ticker, CIK, UEI, DUNS, NPI). Missing structure details and error scenarios, but adequate for a simple one-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds that 'name' accepts entity names OR tickers, beyond the schema's 'Entity name or ticker'. With 100% schema coverage, this clarifies input flexibility and links to output identifiers.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool resolves entities and returns canonical identity plus linked identifiers. It specifies regulatory datasets and identifier types (ticker, CIK, UEI, DUNS, NPI), but does not differentiate from sibling tool 'screen_entity'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling 'screen_entity' exists but no comparison or selection criteria provided. 'Use to cross-walk' is implicit but lacks explicit when-not or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one resolves an entity to identifiers, the other screens for risk. No overlap.
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern: resolve_entity and screen_entity.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but well-scoped for its stated purpose of entity resolution and screening. The count is appropriate for a focused utility.
The tool set covers the two main actions implied by the server name: resolving an entity and screening it for risk. No obvious gaps in this narrow domain.