Trade & Logistics Evidence

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

Beyond the sparse annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral constraints: no carrier scraping, no reference fetching, no legal verdict, no automatic claim, no provider key required, and a fixed price of $0.02/call. This adds real value, though it does not describe whether output is persisted to a Dataset or how state is handled.

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 three short sentences: purpose, constraints, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds distinct information without wasted words.

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?

The tool is complex (nested objects, 8 params, no output schema), but the description covers core purpose, output categories, and key non-goals. The schema's rich per-parameter descriptions fill in most details, though the description could be more explicit about how evidence is returned (e.g., Dataset item or structured payload).

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters, so the top-level description does not need to add parameter-level meaning. It lists output categories but not parameter syntax or semantics, which is appropriate given the schema's depth.

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 uses a specific verb ('Turn') and explicitly names the resource ('buyer-authorized container event snapshots') and the outputs ('ETA, milestone, free-time, cost-exposure, confidence, limitation, and human-review evidence'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling evidence tools by domain (container delay/free-time vs carbon compliance) and states non-goals like 'no legal verdict, automatic claim'.

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 description clearly implies use when the user has buyer-authorized container event snapshots and explicitly rules out use cases that require carrier scraping, reference fetching, or provider keys. However, it does not name a specific alternative tool for those cases, so the guidance is context-rich but not fully explicit about alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: 'without exposing raw vessel identities or claiming official Canal queues' and mentions a 'human review action' and pricing. This gives the agent behavioral insight without contradicting annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary action, then lists outputs and caveats. It includes pricing and the payment rail without unnecessary words. Every clause adds value, making it appropriately concise and well-structured.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent will receive. It lists eight distinct output aspects (side imbalance, movement, dwell, baseline change, freshness, confidence, gaps, human review action) and important constraints (no raw identities, no official queue claim). It does not describe exact return structure, but for a tool of this complexity it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, but the schema's per-parameter descriptions are rich enough to fully explain parameters like sourceMode and identitySalt.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare aggregate commercial-vessel pressure across two fixed Panama Canal approach zones.' It lists specific outputs (side imbalance, movement, dwell, baseline change, etc.) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on Panama Canal zones and emphasizing it doesn't claim official queues.

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 description implies its use case (Panama Canal queue/transit monitoring) and mentions it uses fixed approach zones with no custom coordinates, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the agent must infer when this is the right choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds value by noting the tool is 'Free' and that it can be used without a wallet, which are important behavioral and prerequisite details beyond the annotations.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the primary action ('list every paid tool...') and follow with a usage hint. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what it returns (price, payTo address, network) and when to use it ('first if you don't have a wallet ready yet'). It is complete for its simplicity.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty, so the description is not required to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no unnecessary info about parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'list every paid tool in the 'trade-logistics' bundle with its price, payTo address and network.' This distinguishes it from sibling evidence tools, which focus on specific trade/logistics topics rather than pricing.

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 description provides explicit usage context: 'Call this first if you don't have a wallet ready yet.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool as a preliminary step. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the unique purpose and sibling list imply that other tools are for evidence, not pricing.

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

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

The description discloses that the report includes 'publication lag, freshness, confidence, null reasons, provenance, gaps, and human review,' which goes beyond the annotations by detailing output transparency features. It also mentions optional 'bounded BYOK tanker pressure' and pricing, but it does not explain potential side effects despite readOnlyHint=false.

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 compact at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a listing of additional capabilities and pricing. Every word earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of the report's contents (bunker demand, tanker arrivals, fuel mix, vessel calls, transparency metadata). It does not fully explain what 'divergence' means or precisely define BYOK, but the key context is present.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it also doesn't need to since every parameter is documented in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Compare official monthly Singapore bunker demand, tanker arrivals, fuel mix, and vessel calls in one evidence report.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on other geographies or metrics (e.g., panama-canal-queue-transit-imbalance, strait-of-hormuz-tanker-flow-recovery).

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 description implies usage by specifying Singapore bunker/tanker data, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when to use optional BYOK mode. There are no exclusions or alternative tool names mentioned, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the privacy behavior ('without exposing raw identities or positions'), deterministic output labels, and the pricing model ('$0.02/call, x402'), which are useful behavioral traits.

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 concise, containing two sentences that front-load the purpose and output details. The first sentence explains the comparison and baselines; the second lists outputs and the privacy guarantee. There is no wasted wording, and pricing is appended succinctly.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a solid overview of what the tool does and what it returns (labels, freshness, confidence, gaps, action). It also mentions the demo vs. live mode indirectly via 'without exposing raw identities or positions.' However, it could be more explicit about the return format or how the baselines affect results, but it is sufficient for an agent to select the tool.

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 100%, with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters in the input schema. The tool description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond mentioning the 'three fixed Strait of Hormuz zones' and 'seven- and thirty-observation baselines,' which are indirectly related to the parameters. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Compare aggregate commercial-tanker observations across three fixed Strait of Hormuz zones' and lists specific outputs like 'recovery labels, freshness, confidence, gaps, and a human-review action.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on the Strait of Hormuz tanker flow recovery, which is a unique scope.

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 description provides clear context for when this tool is relevant: when analyzing Strait of Hormuz tanker flow recovery with specific baselines. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, though the tool's specificity makes its usage context obvious. It also notes the privacy feature 'without exposing raw identities or positions,' which adds usage guidance.

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

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

Annotations specify readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable context: 'deterministic', 'pinned official fixtures', 'without provider calls', 'no automatic legal decision', and the cost/payment mechanism ($0.02/call, x402 USDC on base). It does not contradict the annotations; while it doesn't fully disclose potential side effects of a non-read-only operation, the 'calculate/get' wording and demo mode suggest computation rather than external mutation.

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 compact and front-loaded: three sentences cover purpose, inputs, method, outputs, and even pricing/payment. Each sentence carries new information and there is no filler or redundancy. This is an optimally concise yet informative description.

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 complex tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description gives a useful overview of output categories (gas, fuel, segment, truth-ledger, confidence, limitation, receipt evidence) and clarifies it is not a legal decision provider. It omits explicit mention of runtime modes (decision vs synthetic_demo) and cross-field validation rules, but the detailed input schema covers those, so the combination is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter fully documented (patterns, enums, constraints, formats). The description adds little parameter-specific detail beyond a high-level characterization of inputs as 'buyer-supplied vessel, route, and fuel facts', which is already implied by the schema. It meets the baseline for heavily described schemas but does not compensate or augment the schema meaningfully.

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 'Calculate' and a clear object ('deterministic EU ETS voyage exposure'), names inputs ('buyer-supplied vessel, route, and fuel facts') and method ('pinned official fixtures'). It then enumerates output types (gas, fuel, segment, truth-ledger, confidence, limitation, receipt evidence), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that cover unrelated maritime/trade domains (e.g., panama-canal-queue, strait-of-hormuz).

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 description conveys a clear use-case: calculating EU ETS exposure from buyer-supplied facts, and explicitly notes it operates 'without provider calls or an automatic legal decision', which defines appropriate vs. inappropriate use. However, it does not name alternative tools or provide an explicit 'when not to use' list beyond those boundaries, making the guidance clear but not exhaustive.

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