Skip to main content
Glama

Two origins, commodities or gateways side by side

compare
Read-only

Put two subjects on the same axis over the same months and compute the difference: two origin countries, two commodity chapters (or HS6 codes), or two US gateways, measured on trade weight, value, unit value, tariff burden or duty paid. Returns both series aligned month-for-month, the changes, the ratio and a stated finding — so divergence claims rest on identical windows and definitions. Use for "is trade shifting from China to Vietnam", "do Indian goods pay more than Mexican goods", "is Houston growing faster than Savannah". For two ORIGINS on a specific commodity it ALSO returns landed_cost — the duty-inclusive $/kg for each origin AND the FOB price premium the lower-duty origin can carry at the factory and still match landed customs cost. That headroom % is the exact number to put in front of a buyer ("we can be N% pricier than China and you pay the same landed"); it also reports which origin actually lands cheaper today, so the duty gap is never oversold. Both subjects must be the same kind; to compare more than two, call twice. burden_pct/duty_usd come from nationwide receipts and are not available for kind "gateway". No API key required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYes
detailNostandard
monthsNo
originNoOptional filter when kind is commodity/gateway: one origin country.
measureYes
commodityNoOptional filter when kind is origin/gateway: one HS2 chapter or 6-digit code.
subject_aYes
subject_bYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations (readOnly/destructive) by detailing exact outputs: aligned series, changes, ratio, stated finding, and the special landed_cost/FOB headroom calculation for origin comparisons. It also discloses limitations and exceptions, such as nationwide receipts for duty measures.

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 long (three paragraphs) but well-structured and front-loaded with the core function. Most sentences add value, though the extended landed_cost explanation is detailed and arguably could be tightened without losing essential information.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the main outputs and use cases comprehensively, including a special case for origins. It misses details on the 'detail' parameter levels (answer/standard/full) and month range, which are important for agent invocation but not fatal given the schema provides defaults and enums.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Adds meaning to key parameters beyond the schema: clarifies what subject_a/b represent (countries, chapters, gateways), explains the measure enum values (weight, value, unit value, tariff burden, duty paid), and specifies the commodity/origin relationship. However, it does not explain the 'detail' or 'months' parameters, which are undocumented 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 clearly states the tool compares two subjects side-by-side over the same months, with specific verbs ('put', 'compute the difference') and resources (origin countries, commodity chapters, gateways). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on direct comparison and provides concrete examples of intended queries.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit usage examples ('Use for "is trade shifting from China to Vietnam"...') and constraints: both subjects must be same kind, call twice for more than two, and burden/duty measures unavailable for gateway. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance without naming alternatives directly.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tariff-related tools (tariff_story, tariff_burden, tariff_lookup, trade_query) overlap in scope, with tariff_story explicitly replacing three others, which creates confusion. However, each has a distinct granularity and the detailed descriptions help an agent choose correctly most of the time.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use lowercase snake_case, but the structure is inconsistent: some are noun phrases (commodity_profile, origin_profile), some verb-first (compare, query_series), and some noun-verb combinations (hs_search, rulings_search). This mix, while readable, lacks a unifying pattern.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is appropriate for a comprehensive trade/tariff data server; each covers a distinct aspect without bloating the surface.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers HS code search, tariff lookup, actual duty paid, trade volumes, country and commodity profiles, comparisons, event studies, monthly summaries, CBP rulings, and raw series queries—leaving no major gaps for the stated domain.