EU Trade Explorer

Get Map Data

get_map_data

Choropleth-ready aggregates: per-period totals (quantity, value, price) for imports and exports, keyed by GISCO country code on both the reporter and partner sides.

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.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly states the output shape (aggregates keyed by GISCO code) but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination, error handling, or any rate limits. Since it is a data retrieval tool, the lack of safety warnings is not a major issue, but the description provides limited transparency beyond the output format.

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 a single, tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Choropleth-ready aggregates') and adds the key qualifiers (per-period totals, import/export, GISCO codes, reporter/partner sides). No filler or redundant information. It earns its place by being direct and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a nested query object with many parameters) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides the essential 'what' but not the 'when' or 'why' for using this tool. It does not explain the typical use case (e.g., generating a choropleth map) beyond the label 'Choropleth-ready', and it lacks information on how this differs from other map-related tools. The output schema likely covers return values, but the description could be more complete in guiding an agent on when to select this tool.

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%, as every parameter (including nested ones) has a detailed description inside the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but it does provide high-level context by noting the tool returns aggregates keyed by GISCO country code. Per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema covers all parameters.

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 function: 'Choropleth-ready aggregates: per-period totals (quantity, value, price) for imports and exports, keyed by GISCO country code on both the reporter and partner sides.' This is a specific verb+resource (provides choropleth-ready aggregates) and names the key output dimensions (per-period totals, GISCO codes, reporter/partner sides), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_concentration_map which likely serve different map-related purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any context for use, exclusions, or compare with nearby sibling tools. The only implicit signal is the name 'get_map_data', which suggests map-related use, but the description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction.

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?