Resolve a company by ticker, CIK, name, or key and list its current relations, so research can ground itself in existing sourced connections.
Resolve an entity and list its current relations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | Ticker, CIK, company name, canonical key or id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | ||
| relations | Yes | ||
| resolved_by | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that relations are returned alongside the resolved entity, but says nothing about ambiguous-match behavior or how many relations come back, which matters for an entity-resolution tool.
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?
One tight sentence with zero filler and the action front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it omits behavior the agent would plausibly need.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description never addresses the key open question for a resolve tool: what happens with multiple or zero matches, which is not captured elsewhere.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'entity' parameter already enumerates accepted forms (ticker, CIK, company name, canonical key, id). The description adds no format or resolution hints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb pair (resolve, list) and resources (entity, its relations), so an agent knows it returns an entity plus its edges. It does not distinguish itself from graph-adjacent siblings like neighbors, search, or find_paths, leaving overlap ambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no when-not, and no named alternative. 'Resolve' weakly implies it fits ambiguous identifiers, but nothing tells the agent whether to prefer this over search, neighbors, or upsert_entity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.