SiteCheck Trade & Energy

Drewry World Container Index composite spot rate per 40ft

logistics_spot_freight_rates

Read-only

Drewry World Container Index (WCI) composite spot rate per 40ft container (USD), its weekly date and change, read from Drewry's public WCI page. Composite only: the route-level Shanghai-Rotterdam and Shanghai-Los Angeles values are not extracted. Related tools on this server, for a different need: energy_cme_agri_spot_futures when you need monthly world reference prices for corn, wheat and soybeans; logistics_co2_freight_emission when you need freight CO2e emissions for a shipment: tonnes × distance ×. 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_spot_freight_rates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date`	No
`source`	No
`movement`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`compositeUsdPer40ft`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds real context beyond them: the upstream source (Drewry's public page), weekly update frequency, the $0.002 USDC x402 cost per successful call with named payment rails, and the fact that failed calls are not charged. The only shortfall is no note on data freshness lag or historical depth.

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 core scope sentence is front-loaded and well formed, but the appended sibling cross-sell sentences and billing boilerplate make it long, and the freight-emission sentence is truncated mid-formula ('tonnes × distance ×.'), which reads as an editing error.

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 an output schema present, return structure need not be described; with no parameters and read-only annotations, the remaining burden is scope, source, cadence and cost — all supplied. An agent has everything needed to decide to call it and to interpret the charge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly signals a no-argument call and does not waste space inventing parameter guidance.

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?

Names a specific index (Drewry WCI composite spot rate), the unit (USD per 40ft container), the cadence (weekly) and the source page. The scoping sentence 'Composite only: the route-level Shanghai-Rotterdam and Shanghai-Los Angeles values are not extracted' tells an agent exactly what data it will and will not get, which no sibling tool provides.

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?

Explicitly routes two adjacent needs to siblings (energy_cme_agri_spot_futures for ag reference prices, logistics_co2_freight_emission for shipment emissions) and states the composite-only limitation. It does not, however, say when an agent should prefer this over other freight-cost siblings such as logistics_fuel_bunker_prices or logistics_truck_loadboard_rate.

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?