EU Trade Explorer

Get Specialisation

get_specialisation

Intra-EU revealed symmetric comparative advantage (RSCA) per member state -- a Balassa index benchmarked against the EU instead of the world. Runs -1 (under-specialised) to +1 (strongly specialised), value -based and intra-EU only. Treat with caution: intra-EU flows are distorted by the Rotterdam/Antwerp quasi-transit effect.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`year`	No	Year for the 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

A4.2/5.0

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 range (-1 to +1), the intra-EU-only limitation, the value-based methodology, and a specific data-quality caveat (Rotterdam/Antwerp effect). This is substantial behavioral transparency for a data-query tool, though it does not cover edge cases like empty results or handling of missing data.

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 three sentences: first states the core purpose, then the scale and scope, then a caution. Every sentence contributes unique information without redundancy, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the complexity of the nested query object and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient conceptual context (RSCA, intra-EU, caution) without needing to restate parameter details. It could mention the relationship to sibling endpoints or emphasize that 'product' is required, but the schema already covers that. Overall, it is complete for the tool's purpose.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of all parameters, including the nested query object with detailed field descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific insight, relying entirely on the schema. Since the schema is exhaustive, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: it computes intra-EU revealed symmetric comparative advantage (RSCA) per member state, explicitly distinguishing itself from world-benchmarked indices and other sibling tools. The scope (intra-EU, value-based) and the -1 to +1 scale make the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: to measure comparative advantage within the EU, with a note about intra-EU distortion. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of the most explicit guidance.

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?