SiteCheck Trade & Energy

US Class I rail traffic: carloads or intermodal units per

logistics_rail_freight_corridor

Read-only

US Class I rail traffic: carloads or intermodal units per period from FRED (series RAILFRTCARLOADSD11 / RAILFRTINTERMODALD11, AAR data), latest values and recent history. National totals only: there is no corridor-by-corridor status in this source. Related tools on this server, for a different need: logistics_co2_freight_emission when you need freight CO2e emissions for a shipment: tonnes × distance ×; logistics_freight_forwarder_dir when you need FIATA member freight forwarders by country from FIATA's. 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_rail_freight_corridor"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`months`	No	1 to 60 recent observations (default 6)
`series`	No	carloads or intermodal (default carloads)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`latest`	No
`series`	No
`source`	No
`history`	No
`measure`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses material behavior an agent cannot infer: the data is national aggregate only (no corridor granularity), values are latest plus recent history, and each successful call costs $0.002 USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc with failed calls not charged. Cost and payment-authorization requirements are exactly the kind of context annotations do not carry.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose and scope constraints are front-loaded, which is good. However, the sibling references contain visibly truncated fragments ('tonnes × distance ×' and 'from FIATA's.') that waste space and could read as errors, and the pricing sentence is bolted on without a structural transition.

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, fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description needs only scope, source, and cost context — all of which it supplies, including the critical caveat that no corridor-level data exists. An agent has everything required to decide to call this tool and to call it correctly.

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 (months with its 1–60 range and default 6, series with default carloads) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the carloads/intermodal distinction but adds no format, encoding, or enum guidance beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'US Class I rail traffic: carloads or intermodal units per period from FRED', and even names the exact series IDs (RAILFRTCARLOADSD11 / RAILFRTINTERMODALD11) plus the upstream source (AAR). It also pre-empts a likely misreading of the tool name by declaring 'National totals only: there is no corridor-by-corridor status in this source', which cleanly separates it from corridor- or port-level siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly routes two adjacent needs away from this tool with conditional phrasing ('when you need freight CO2e emissions for a shipment', 'when you need FIATA member freight forwarders by country'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It does not address competition with genuinely overlapping logistics siblings such as spot freight rates, dry van capacity or port congestion, so the routing is clear but partial.

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?