get_entityOne company in the federal record: contracts won, PACs, patents, private raises, members of Congress who hold board seats there, insider trades, and its connections graph. Look up by ticker, entity_id, or a name (resolved exactly).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Company name; resolved by exact match | |
| ticker | No | Stock ticker, e.g. LMT | |
| entity_id | No | HillSignal entity id (hs:entity:...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral details: the lookup is for a single company in the federal record and name resolution is exact. It does not mention not-found behavior, rate limits, or auth, but with read-only coverage this is acceptable.
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?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The data categories are front-loaded, and the lookup methods follow immediately. Every clause adds information that helps an agent select and invoke the tool.
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?
For a read-only company profile lookup, the description covers the essential context: scope (one company in the federal record), return contents, and available identifiers. It doesn't specify an output schema or edge cases like missing parameters, but the enumerated data categories and exact-match note are sufficient for initial tool selection.
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. The description lists the same three parameters (ticker, entity_id, name) and adds no semantics beyond the schema, except reinforcing the exact-match behavior for name, which is already in the schema description.
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 identifies a single-company lookup tool: 'One company in the federal record' and enumerates the data categories returned (contracts, PACs, patents, private raises, board seats, insider trades, connections graph). It also states the lookup keys (ticker, entity_id, name), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 gives clear invocation guidance: 'Look up by ticker, entity_id, or a name (resolved exactly).' It implies this tool is for retrieving one company's full profile and does not need exclusions or alternatives because no sibling tools are in context. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.