Trade & Logistics Evidence

Singapore Bunker Demand & Tanker Flow Divergence

singapore-bunker-tanker-divergence

Compare official monthly Singapore bunker demand, tanker arrivals, fuel mix, and vessel calls in one evidence report. Add optional bounded BYOK tanker pressure, with publication lag, freshness, confidence, null reasons, provenance, gaps, and human review. — $0.02/call, x402 (USDC on base).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`maxRows`	No	One bounded page per official source; 240 covers the observed 13-month window and up to 500 is allowed.
`watchId`	No	Stable identity for the Singapore baseline.	singapore-bunker-main
`requestId`	No	Use auto for a Task-safe run identity.	auto
`sourceMode`	No	Demo is synthetic; open uses data.gov.sg; open_plus_byok adds two bounded Datalastic provider requests: /stat plus Singapore.	open
`schemaVersion`	Yes	Contract version for this Actor input.	1.0
`baselineMonths`	No	Historical window used for 3-month and 12-month comparisons.
`datalasticApiKey`	No	Only valid with sourceMode=open_plus_byok; runtime validation requires a printable 8-256 character secret, rejects it in demo/open, and never returns it.
`maxTotalChargeUsd`	No	Buyer cap checked before the paid result event.
`maxProviderRequests`	No	Exactly two requests are permitted for BYOK: /stat plus the Singapore zone.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

All Trade & Logistics Evidence 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

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct logistics evidence domain: container exceptions, Panama Canal, bunker/tanker, Strait of Hormuz, voyage carbon, and pricing metadata. There is no overlap in purpose or resource type, so an agent can easily select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same pattern: lowercase descriptive noun-phrases joined by hyphens (e.g., 'container-exception-evidence', 'panama-canal-queue-transit-imbalance'). The style is uniform and predictable, making the set feel cohesive.

Tool Count5/5

With six tools, the server is well-scoped for a specialized evidence bundle. Each tool provides a distinct service, and pricing_info serves as a necessary meta-tool for onboarding. This is an appropriate size for the stated purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tools cover a diverse range of trade and logistics evidence scenarios, including container events, canal transits, fuel demand, strait flow recovery, and carbon compliance. While there are always possible additions (e.g., customs or general tracking), the current set covers the core evidence needs without obvious dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?