banking-intelligence

hs_code_lookup

Reverse-lookup an HS code → mapped export-control classifications (ECCNs).

For customs brokers / shippers who have an HS (Harmonized System) code and need to know which export-control classifications may apply. Returns the mapped ECCNs with confidence levels, control reasons, sensitivity, and the governing international regime (Wassenaar, MTCR, NSG, etc.).

A 4-digit HS heading is accepted, but mappings are richest at the 6-digit subheading level (e.g. "854231" rather than "8542"). An empty mapping list means no export-control mapping is on file for that code — it is NOT a guarantee the goods are uncontrolled; confirm with goods_classify or a formal classification.

Args: hs_code: 4-6 digit HS code (e.g. "854231", "8411"). Dots/spaces are ok. jurisdiction: Optional filter — "US", "EU", "UK", or "JP".

Examples: hs_code_lookup("854231") # semiconductors → 3A001 / 3A090 ... hs_code_lookup("841112") # turbojet engines → 9A001 ... hs_code_lookup("854231", "US") # US mappings only

Use case: 'What export controls might apply to HS code 854231?'

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`hs_code`	Yes
`jurisdiction`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It clearly indicates the tool is a read-only lookup with no side effects, describes accepted input formats (dots/spaces allowed), and discloses that empty results lack certainty, directing users to formal classification.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, details, Args, Examples, Use case) and front-loads the key purpose. It is slightly longer than necessary, but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy could be trimmed (e.g., Example repetition).

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 the tool's complexity (export control mapping with caveats), the description covers input requirements, output content (ECCNs, confidence, regime), limitations, and alternative tools. It even references output schema fields implicitly. No gaps remain for the agent to interpret.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage (no parameter descriptions in schema), but the description includes an 'Args:' section that explains both parameters: hs_code (4-6 digits, dots/spaces ok) and jurisdiction (optional filter with examples). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool performs a reverse-lookup from HS codes to export-control classifications (ECCNs). It uses specific verbs ('reverse-lookup'), specifies the resource (HS code to ECCNs), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like goods_classify and eccn_lookup by focusing on the mapping direction and use case.

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 explicitly targets customs brokers and shippers, advises on optimal input (6-digit vs 4-digit), and cautions that an empty mapping does not guarantee uncontrolled goods, recommending goods_classify for confirmation. However, it does not explicitly name all alternative tools or describe when not to use this tool.

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

All banking-intelligence tools Inspect

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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlapping areas (goods_classify vs hs_code_lookup vs eccn_lookup; fx_rate vs fx_rate_history vs fx_volatility) require close reading of descriptions to select correctly. The detailed descriptions help, but the shear number of lookup tools creates mild ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix verb-first (track_payment, mcp_verify) and noun-first patterns (iban_validate, fx_rate, ssi_lookup), with some phrase-like names (banks_using_correspondent, is_business_day_check). While readable, there is no single consistent convention.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is heavy, but the server's broad scope (payments, FX, sanctions, export controls, company registries, SWIFT) justifies most of them. A few marginal tools (mcp_register, mcp_verify, company_search_result) add bulk without core value.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the payment lifecycle end-to-end: tracking, settlement, FX, compliance, sanctions, and company due diligence. There are no obvious dead ends; the tools chain together via next_steps and search_id flows.

Resources

Need Help?