Find sanctioned vessels that called at EU/EEA ports. Cross-references OFAC sanctions with EU MRV emissions data (verifiable IMO-level identity). Filter by year or a free-text query (sanctions program e.g. "Iran"/"Russia", flag, or vessel name).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| year | No | Filter by year (2018-2024) | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | Program (e.g. "Iran"), flag state, or vessel name |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It states cross-referencing data sources and verifiable IMO identity, but no mention of side effects, auth needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not explicit about read-only nature.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, no fluff. First sentence states core function, second adds filtering options. 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?
Covers purpose and filtering but omits output description. No output schema, so agent relies on description for return format. Missing detail on what results look like.
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?
Schema coverage is 67% with 'limit' missing description. Description adds meaning to 'query' parameter (program, flag, vessel name) and restates 'year' purpose. Adds value beyond schema but 'limit' unaddressed.
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?
Description explicitly states the tool finds sanctioned vessels that called at EU/EEA ports, cross-referencing OFAC sanctions with EU MRV emissions data. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'shipping_sanctions' which is likely broader.
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?
Description implies when to use (for EU port call sanctions) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Clear context but lacks exclusions.
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.