Skip to main content
Glama

Get Trade Intensity

get_trade_intensity

Trade Intensity (TI) = (Imports + Exports) / (Imports + Production), annual. Near 1 = highly trade-exposed sector; near 0 = predominantly domestic. Used in the Commission's CEEAG methodology for carbon-leakage / State-aid eligibility. Returns the TI series, its components, sibling-category/per-code comparisons, resolved PRODCOM codes and availability notes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe 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.
compactNoIf 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool computes, how to interpret the metric, and what data it returns (series, components, comparisons, resolved codes, availability notes). This goes well beyond a simple 'get data' statement, though it does not address potential caveats like data availability limitations or request constraints.

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 concise and well-structured. It opens with the formula and interpretation, then gives the purpose context, and closes with the return contents. Every sentence contributes useful information with no redundancy or fluff.

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 rich input schema and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains not only what the tool does but also why it matters (CEEAG methodology) and what components to expect in the result, enabling an agent to select and invoke it appropriately among many sibling tools.

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 with detailed descriptions for every parameter. The description adds context about the metric's components (imports, exports, production) but does not add specific parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already documents. Therefore, the baseline of 3 applies.

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: it returns Trade Intensity, defined by an explicit formula. It also explains the interpretation (near 1 vs near 0) and the return contents (TI series, components, comparisons, PRODCOM codes, availability notes). This distinguishes it from sibling analytical tools like get_net_import_reliance.

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 provides context for when the tool is relevant: it is used in the Commission's CEEAG methodology for carbon-leakage/State-aid eligibility. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Try in Browser

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