Query the shipping document intelligence layer: eBL platform adoption (12 platforms), MLETR country adoption (23 countries, 13 enacted), document fraud cases ($11.3B), DCSA standards (10), industry stats (26 metrics). The state of shipping document digitization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | Topic: "platforms", "mletr", "fraud", "standards", "stats", or "overview" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, or limitations. It merely lists available topics without explaining side effects or preconditions.
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 that packs substantial detail without being overly verbose, though it could benefit from breaking the list into a clearer structure.
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?
Given the simple input schema (one enum) and no output schema, the description adequately elaborates on each topic's content, though it does not specify response format or data freshness.
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 single parameter 'topic' has a clear enum with schema description, and the tool description adds rich context (e.g., number of platforms, countries, fraud amount) that goes beyond the schema, aiding correct selection.
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 it queries a 'shipping document intelligence layer' and lists specific topics (platforms, mletr, fraud, etc.) with concrete numbers, distinguishing it from sibling tools that address different shipping domains.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives, but sibling tools are sufficiently different in scope (e.g., chokepoints, emissions) that this tool's purpose is implied; still lacks explicit usage instructions.
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.