EU Trade Explorer

Get Product Compare

get_product_compare

Sub-product comparison: for a single parent CN code, expands into its children (or, for a multi-code request, compares the entered codes directly) and returns per-subcode quantity/value/price series for both flows -- so each sub-product plots as its own line instead of being aggregated away. A leaf code with no children returns leaf: true.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It explains expansion into children, direct comparison for multi-code requests, per-subcode series for both flows, and the leaf flag. While it does not mention potential response size limits or error conditions, the key behavioral aspects are clearly disclosed.

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 compact two-sentence text with no filler. It front-loads the core concept and uses every clause to convey meaningful information. The structure makes it easy for an agent to quickly grasp the tool's unique functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of the query object and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential distinguishing behavior (sub-product expansion, multi-code handling, leaf response). It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists. The description sufficiently equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides 100% parameter coverage with rich descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying how the 'product' parameter is interpreted—single parent codes expand into children, while multi-code lists are compared directly—which is not explicit in the schema. This enhances the semantic understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 'Sub-product comparison', which precisely names the tool's purpose. It clearly states that it expands a parent CN code into children and returns per-subcode quantity/value/price series for both flows, distinguishing it from aggregated views. The leaf-case behavior is also specified, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies when to use the tool: when a breakdown by sub-product is desired rather than aggregation, as indicated by 'instead of being aggregated away'. It also clarifies the handling of multi-code requests. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, which would make it even stronger.

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?