China Macro & Supply Signals

China FDI Flow & Position Monitor

china-fdi-flow-position-monitor

Read-only

Monitor official OECD China FDI financial flows and positions by assets and liabilities, with paid-delivery-safe deltas. — $0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`endYear`	No	Inclusive last year, not later than the current UTC year.
`datasets`	No	Official OECD aggregate financial flows (quarterly), positions (annual), or both. Values use the assets/liabilities accounting principle; they are not inbound/outbound labels.
`startYear`	No	Inclusive first year. Runtime validation enforces 2005 or later and a maximum 10-year window.
`watchName`	No	Stable private baseline scope. Reuse it in scheduled runs to compare only against a previously confirmed paid delivery.	china-fdi-main
`cacheMaxAgeMinutes`	No	Reuse a validated official OECD response for 0-120 minutes. Set 0 to disable cache reads. Cache state never changes the paid-delivery baseline.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the cost per call ($0.02/call) and a cryptic 'paid-delivery-safe deltas' phrase, but does not elaborate on what 'paid-delivery-safe' means or how deltas behave. This adds some value beyond annotations but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by pricing. Every word serves a purpose, and it is concise without being under-specified, though 'x402 (USDC on base)' is slightly cryptic.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description should hint at return values, but it only says 'flows and positions' and 'deltas' without elaborating on output structure or delta computation. The schema richly documents inputs, but the agent remains unclear about what the response contains or how to interpret 'paid-delivery-safe deltas'.

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 descriptions cover 100% of the 5 parameters, including detailed info like year ranges, dataset enums, watchName patterns, and cache age. The description itself does not add much semantic value beyond echoing 'assets and liabilities' from the datasets field, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Monitor official OECD China FDI financial flows and positions by assets and liabilities'. It uses a specific verb (monitor), a distinct resource (China FDI from OECD), and notably differs from sibling tools like supplier or LEI monitors. The scope and data source are unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for tracking China FDI data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are in unrelated domains, so confusion is minimal, but no explicit 'use when' guidance is given. The pricing note is not a usage guideline.

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

All China Macro & Supply Signals 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each monitor targets a distinct data domain: 1688 suppliers, OECD FDI, GLEIF LEI entities, and World Bank macro revisions. The pricing_info tool is clearly separate as a billing helper. No two tools overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency4/5

The four data monitors follow a consistent 'china-<domain>-monitor' pattern, making the tool's purpose predictable. pricing_info deviates but serves a distinct meta-function, so the minor inconsistency is acceptable.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools, the bundle is well-scoped for a China macro and supply signals monitor server. Each tool covers a different aspect, and none are redundant or excessive.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers macro data, FDI flows, entity changes, and supplier supply-side metrics. Missing potentially useful monitors (e.g., trade or inflation) but core workflows are well covered with no dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?