Top oil exporting countries by value/volume (a ranking — no query needed). Optional product or query recognizes a product keyword (crude/refined/lng/coal/iron_ore).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| product | No | crude |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It hints at safe, read-only behavior ('ranking — no query needed') and parameter usage, but does not disclose sorting order, caching, rate limits, or what happens with invalid product keywords. Behavioral details are insufficient.
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 two sentences and to the point, but lacks structure (e.g., not front-loading the most critical info). No unnecessary words, but it could be more efficiently organized.
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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves many gaps: output format (ranking list with countries and values?), error handling, default behavior when neither query nor product is provided. It is insufficient for full autonomous use.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that `product` and `query` accept product keywords (crude/refined/lng/coal/iron_ore), but it is ambiguous whether they are alternatives or override each other. The `limit` parameter is not described at all. Added meaning is minimal.
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 states it returns 'Top oil exporting countries by value/volume (a ranking — no query needed)', which clearly identifies the verb (lists/returns) and resource (top oil exporters). It distinguishes from sibling tools by implying a quick, queryless ranking, but does not explicitly contrast with tools like shipping_oil_trade or shipping_country_flows.
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 mentions 'no query needed' and optional product/query parameters, implying it is for simple rankings. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., shipping_oil_trade for detailed trade), nor does it state prerequisites or 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.