SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Paragraphs of the US hazardous materials rule for lithium

logistics_lithium_battery_rules

Read-only

Paragraphs of the US hazardous materials rule for lithium batteries (49 CFR 173.185, eCFR) that mention a keyword such as 'aircraft' or 'UN3480'. This is the US rule text, not the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations (which are a paid publication) and not a legal opinion. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "logistics_lithium_battery_rules"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	1 to 10 paragraphs (default 3)
`keyword`	No	Word or phrase to find, 3 to 40 characters (default aircraft)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`source`	No
`keyword`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`paragraphs`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a per-call price of $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged, plus the source provenance and a non-legal-opinion disclaimer. That payment gating is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the disambiguation and pricing. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the parenthetical pricing detail is long but is a real constraint, not padding.

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?

With only two optional parameters, full schema coverage, a read-only annotation set and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what corpus, what matching semantics, what it is not, and what it costs. Nothing material is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented there, including the 1-10 range and the default of 3. The description only echoes the keyword examples ('aircraft', 'UN3480') and says nothing about limit, so baseline 3 applies with no meaningful additive semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it returns paragraphs of 49 CFR 173.185 (eCFR) that match a keyword such as 'aircraft' or 'UN3480'. It also draws a sharp boundary against IATA DGR text, so the agent knows exactly which corpus is being searched, though it does not explicitly contrast with nearby siblings like logistics_un_dangerous_goods or logistics_hazardous_placard_id.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: a keyword search over US lithium-battery hazmat text. The negative guidance ('not the IATA Dangerous Goods Regulations', 'not a legal opinion') usefully rules out two likely misuses, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives clause naming a sibling tool.

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

All SiteCheck Trade & Energy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?