Skip to main content
Glama

LiveDataLink

by io.github.blackboxfoundry

resolve_entity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Canonical cross-source entity resolution - the join-key primitive to run before other combos. Given a company/organization name (plus optional ticker/CIK/EIN/state hints), fans out across the LiveDataLink sources that carry a strong identifier and returns the best-matched canonical identity plus the IDs it resolves to: SEC EDGAR (CIK, ticker), GLEIF (LEI plus the ownership chain - direct and ultimate parent LEI and the reported subsidiary count), NPPES (organizational NPI for healthcare entities), IRS 990 (EIN), USAspending (federal recipient name), EPA ECHO (facility registry id), and an OFAC/EU/UN/BIS sanctions screen (match/no-match flag). Returns a compact canonical-IDs block with per-source confidence, an entity-type guess, an ownership summary, and an overall match confidence - distinct from entity_dossier's full narrative. A source that fails is noted, not fatal. UEI/SAM.gov and RDAP domain-owner ids are omitted (not wired sources). Cross-source synthesis; verify identifiers before relying on a join.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cikNoOptional SEC CIK hint.
einNoOptional EIN for an exact IRS 990 nonprofit match.
nameYesCompany or organization name to resolve (e.g. 'Apple', 'Lockheed Martin', 'Red Cross').
stateNoOptional 2-letter state to disambiguate nonprofit/EPA name searches.
tickerNoOptional stock ticker hint to pin the SEC EDGAR match (e.g. 'AAPL').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds material behavioral detail: per-source confidence, best-match semantics, non-fatal source failures, omitted sources, and a verification caveat. This is well beyond what annotations alone convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the tool's role before enumerating sources and outputs. Every clause provides useful context, though the long registry enumeration makes it heavier than strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the result contains, which sources contribute, how failures behave, what is intentionally omitted, and how to treat the output. An agent has enough context to invoke and interpret this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema carries the full parameter documentation. The description reiterates the hint relationship (ticker/CIK/EIN/state) but does not add significant new meaning beyond grouping them as optional disambiguation hints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific operation: cross-source entity resolution returning a canonical identity and identifiers from named registries. It distinguishes itself from entity_dossier by contrast, but it does not address the similarly named entity_resolve sibling, leaving a potential selection ambiguity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells the agent this is a join-key primitive to run before other combinations, which gives clear timing. It also contrasts with entity_dossier's narrative output and notes omitted sources, but it stops short of explicitly saying when to choose an alternative such as entity_resolve or a direct registry lookup.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All LiveDataLink toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily—company due-diligence and risk tools (counterparty_risk_score, company_trust_check, entity_dossier, issuer_diligence_dossier, resolve_entity, entity_resolve), carrier vetting tools, sanctions screening tools, and recall tools all have subtle boundary distinctions. While descriptions are detailed, an agent navigating 294 tools will frequently struggle to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case domain-prefix pattern (fdic_, edgar_, sanctions_, congress_), which helps. However, verb placement is inconsistent—search_available_datasets vs cdc_dataset_query, resolve_entity vs entity_resolve—and synonyms like search, lookup, get, detail, fetch, and status are used interchangeably.

Tool Count1/5

294 tools is an extreme number for a single MCP server, far beyond what an agent can reliably hold in context or select from accurately. The presence of tool-group discovery helpers mitigates but does not solve the fundamental scale problem.

Completeness4/5

The data breadth is genuinely extensive, covering finance, health, legal, real estate, transportation, energy, cyber, education, and many other domains, often with generic query fallbacks. Still, some capabilities are shallow or incomplete—package tracking stops at a link, property tools are demo-only in places, and caselaw coverage is limited—so it is not a fully complete surface.

Resources