EU Trade Explorer

Get Concentration

get_concentration

Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) of trade concentration across partners or member states, per period (0 = perfectly spread, 10000 = one entity holds the whole market), plus the top-8-by-value share breakdown (rest bundled as 'Others'). Higher HHI = more dependent on a handful of counterparties.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	The product/reporter/partner-set/period/frequency slice to query -- the same request body every tradedashboard.eu analytical endpoint takes. See its own field descriptions (product, reporter, partner_set, period_start, period_end, frequency, n_top, ...) for details; only `product` is required, everything else has a sensible default.
`compact`	No	If true, condense long numeric time series (more than ~6 points -- typically monthly/quarterly windows or wide multi-partner/multi-period breakdowns) into summary statistics (first, last, min, max, mean, pct_change) instead of returning every data point. Leave false for full-fidelity series (e.g. to actually plot a chart); set true when you just need the headline trend and want to save context.
`entity_level`	No	Dimension to analyse. 'partner' -- how concentrated/volatile is the reporter's trade across its trading partners? 'reporter' -- how concentrated/volatile is a given partner's trade across EU member states? When 'reporter', 'partner_name' is required.	partner
`partner_name`	No	Partner country name (English). Required when entity_level='reporter'.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose behavioral context: the HHI range (0-10000), the top-8 breakdown with rest bundled as 'Others', and the interpretation of higher HHI. However, it does not mention any caveats around data sources, completeness, or the shape of the response (e.g., per-period time series), so it is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core metric and quickly adds the key interpretation detail. Every part adds value: the HHI range, the top-8 breakdown, and the practical implication. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered elsewhere. The description provides a useful high-level understanding but does not position the tool among its many siblings or explain how the compact/entity_level/query parameters alter the output. It is complete enough for basic understanding but lacks contextual depth for an agent to fully plan a call.

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 description itself does not reference any parameters, but the schema already provides detailed descriptions for every field (e.g., entity_level, compact, query sub-fields). No additional value is needed, and no gaps are present.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states what the tool returns: the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) of trade concentration across partners or member states, plus a top-8 breakdown. The verb is implicit but unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_concentration_compare or get_concentration_map, so it does not reach a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains what HHI means ('Higher HHI = more dependent on a handful of counterparties') but never mentions when to choose this over get_concentration_compare, get_concentration_map, or other concentration-related tools. There are no alternatives noted and no exclusions.

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

All EU Trade Explorer 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but several concentration-related tools (get_concentration, get_concentration_compare, get_concentration_map) and volatility-related tools (get_volatility, get_volatility_summary) could be confused without careful reading. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always immediately obvious.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent get_ prefix pattern for data retrieval. A few exceptions (guidelines_for_a_*, resolve_product_code, search_codes, validate_code) deviate to signal different kinds of operations, which is sensible but breaks uniformity.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. Many tools are variations on the same analytical theme (e.g., multiple concentration and production tools) and could be consolidated or parameterized. This creates a steep learning curve and increases the chance of selecting the wrong tool.

Completeness5/5

The tool set comprehensively covers the trade-exploration workflow: product code resolution, hierarchical browsing, headline stats, partner/reporter detail, concentration, volatility, shocks, production metrics, and report generation. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for its stated purpose.

Resources

Need Help?