Resolve a corpus entity by a strong identifier — lei | ofac | eu | un | uk | uen | sec | krs | gb-coh | siren | br-cnpj (Brazil RFB CNPJ, 8-digit root or full 14-digit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| value | Yes | ||
| scheme | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint already cover the safety profile. The description adds modest extra context by noting the br-cnpj scheme accepts an 8-digit root or full 14-digit value. However, it does not disclose not-found behavior, whether the resolved entity is returned in full or just an entity ID, or any other runtime behavior.
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 a single dense sentence that leads with the primary verb, then delivers the essential scoping (registries and one value nuance). There is no filler or repetition of schema properties; every token contributes meaning.
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 simple lookup tool with 2 parameters and full annotations, the description is mostly complete. The main gap is the lack of an output schema or any statement about what 'resolve' actually returns (entity metadata, ID, or dossier), and no explicit fallback guidance when the identifier is not found. Given the sibling contract, a little more detail would be warranted.
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 0%, so the description has some burden to explain parameters. It duplicates the scheme enum and only adds meaning to the value parameter for br-cnpj. It does not explain format expectations for other schemes, but because the enum is explicit and value is a natural string identifier, the parameter guidance is minimally adequate.
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 opens with a specific verb ('Resolve') and resource ('a corpus entity'), then tightly scopes the operation by enumerating the accepted identifier schemes. This clearly differentiates it from sibling search/get tools and makes the tool's single job unmistakable.
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 phrase 'strong identifier' plus the full list of accepted registries gives clear context: this tool should be used when the caller already holds a known registry identifier. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives like resolve or search_entities, but the intent is strongly inferred.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (search, lookup, get details, graph traversal, coverage maps, payment). Some overlap exists between lookup_company and lookup_by_identifier (both resolve identifiers, though one is UK-specific), and between get_entity vs get_company_details, but descriptions clarify distinctions. find_similar and semantic_search both find similar entities but different mechanisms.
Uses a mix of verb_noun and noun_phrases: buy_dossier, claim_dossier, check_offshore_exposure, find_similar, get_pricing, get_pulse, graph_neighbourhood, list_asset_coverage, lookup_by_identifier, search_entities, trace_ownership_path. While most use underscores and verbs like get/lookup/search/list, there are inconsistencies like 'graph_neighbourhood' (noun start) vs 'trace_ownership_path' (verb start). Overall readable but not perfectly consistent.
23 tools is at the high end but justifiable for a comprehensive intelligence server covering search, lookup, graph, coverage, payments, and entity details. 'buy_dossier' is considered one of the tools and adds bulk but not excessive. It is appropriate for the scope.
Covers a wide range: search (search_entities, search_companies, semantic_search), identifier lookup (lookup_by_identifier, lookup_company), entity details (get_entity, get_company_details, get_financials), graph (graph_neighbourhood, graph_path, trace_ownership_path), coverage maps (list_jurisdictions, list_asset_coverage), sanctions (get_sanctions, check_offshore_exposure), plus payment flow (get_pricing, buy_dossier, claim_dossier, get_payment_link). Missing perhaps a 'get_relationships' separate tool but get_entity includes direct relationships. Also no explicit 'list_entities' but search covers it. Minor gaps like no bulk operations besides resolve.
