EU Trade Explorer

Get Reporter Benchmark

get_reporter_benchmark

Every EU reporter ranked by value for one year -- the country-view counterpart of get_reporter_detail. Returns a single-year snapshot (every real EU member state's quantity, value and price per flow, ranked by value) plus a benchmark price time series: the weighted average across whichever reporters query.reporter resolves to (the whole EU by default, or narrower when query.reporter is itself an aggregate -- euro area, a named group, or an ad hoc custom group), the cross-reporter min/max envelope, and the selected reporter's own line when query.reporter is a single real member state. Use it to answer "how does this country -- or reporter group -- compare to every other reporter?".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	No	Year for the cross-sectional snapshot. Defaults to the latest full year with data.
`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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output structure (single-year snapshot, benchmark price time series, weighted average, min/max envelope, selected reporter's own line) and the reporter resolution logic (whole EU by default, narrower when `query.reporter` is an aggregate). It doesn't mention side effects or safety guarantees, but for a read-only query tool this level of detail is strong.

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 a single dense paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling differentiation. Every sentence adds information about output structure or reporter behavior. It's slightly long, but the complexity of the tool justifies it; no waste or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's purpose, what it returns, reporter resolution nuances, and its relationship to a sibling tool. An output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to enumerate return values. It omits details like pagination or limits, but given the rich schema and output schema, this is adequate and well-rounded.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the `reporter` parameter affects the benchmark computation (resolves to whole EU, aggregate, or single member state), which is not obvious from the schema alone. This enriches the semantics of a key parameter beyond its formal definition.

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+resource+scope: "Every EU reporter ranked by value for one year," clearly stating the tool's function. It also differentiates from the sibling `get_reporter_detail` by calling itself "the country-view counterpart," which frames its distinct role in the tool family.

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 explicitly states when to use it: "Use it to answer 'how does this country -- or reporter group -- compare to every other reporter?'" It also names the alternative `get_reporter_detail` as a counterpart, giving clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., if you need the same reporter across time), so a missed exclusion prevents a 5.

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?