Trade partners for a specific country (who they export to / import from). Pass the country as country or query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Alias for country | |
| country | No | ||
| direction | No | exports |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Trade partners' implying a read operation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is idempotent. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose. Could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the output format, the effect of 'limit', or the possible values for 'direction'. More documentation is needed for an agent to use it confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that 'country' and 'query' are aliases, and mentions direction defaults to 'exports'. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter or provide details for 'country' beyond the alias. Schema coverage is low (25%), so description adds some value but not enough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves trade partners (exports/imports) for a specific country, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different shipping topics like chokepoints, emissions, etc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly tells how to pass the country via 'country' or 'query' parameters. It implies usage for trade flow analysis but does not mention when to avoid this tool or alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between shipping_status and shipping_freshness (both provide freshness information) and between shipping_sanctions and shipping_sanctioned_at_eu (both deal with sanctions, though one is general and the other EU-specific). Descriptions help disambiguate, but the potential for confusion remains.
All tools follow a consistent 'shipping_' prefix followed by a descriptive noun phrase (e.g., shipping_chokepoint, shipping_emissions, shipping_oil_trade). The naming pattern is uniform and predictable, with no mixed conventions.
With 13 tools, the server covers a broad domain (chokepoints, trade flows, emissions, fleet, sanctions, document intelligence, oil data) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear, non-redundant purpose, and the count is well-scoped for a specialized maritime intelligence server.
The tool set covers core maritime intelligence areas: chokepoint monitoring, trade flows, emissions, fleet, sanctions, oil prices, and data freshness. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for port congestion or vessel tracking outside chokepoints), but the core workflows for sanctions, trade, and emissions are well-covered.