resolve_entityMap any one of a ticker, CIK, or CUSIP to the canonical SEC entity: legal name, CIK, ticker(s), exchange, SIC industry and sector, state of incorporation, and location. The foundational lookup for identifying a filer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cik | No | SEC CIK, e.g. '320193' (zero-padding optional). | |
| cusip | No | 9-character CUSIP, e.g. '037833100'. | |
| ticker | No | US stock ticker, e.g. 'AAPL'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness. The description adds useful behavioral context by listing the resolved fields (legal name, CIK, ticker(s), exchange, SIC, state of incorporation, location) and by clarifying that any one identifier maps to the same canonical entity.
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?
Two focused sentences with no filler. The core action and accepted inputs lead, followed by the output payload and the tool's broader role. Every sentence adds information.
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, the description appropriately lists the resolved fields and frames the tool as a canonical lookup. It could further clarify whether multiple identifier parameters may be combined or how conflicts are resolved, but the essential call-and-response behavior is sufficiently covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic value by stating that the three identifier parameters are interchangeable entry points into the same entity resolution. This relationship among parameters is not expressed in the individual schema descriptions.
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 uses the specific verb 'Map' and names the exact resource ('canonical SEC entity') plus the three accepted identifier types. It enumerates the output fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from sibling data-retrieval tools.
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?
The description frames the tool as 'The foundational lookup for identifying a filer,' which gives clear context for when an agent should use it. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct SEC EDGAR resource and action: company info, filings, fundamentals, ratios, insider trades, activist stakes, fund holdings, events, and narrative sections. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clarify any potential ambiguity (e.g., get_activist vs get_holdings).
All tools follow a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a singular or plural noun (e.g., get_company, get_filings, get_ratios). The pattern is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer behavior from the name.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a financial data server covering company profiles, regulatory filings, and derived metrics. Each tool has a clear, non-redundant role, neither feeling sparse nor bloated.
The surface covers the core EDGAR resources: company metadata, filings, financial statements, ratios, insider activity, activist filings, fund holdings, material events, and narrative sections. Minor gaps exist (e.g., direct search for specific filing types or proxy statements), but agents can accomplish most research workflows without dead ends.