Compare ocean carriers serving an origin→destination port pair, ranked by on-time reliability and transit time. Use this to decide which line to book.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| origin | Yes | Origin port UN/LOCODE, e.g. CNSHA | |
| destination | Yes | Destination port UN/LOCODE, e.g. NLRTM |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as data freshness, permissions needed, side effects, or how the ranking is computed. This lack of detail is a significant gap for a decision-making tool.
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 with zero waste, clearly stating purpose and usage. Efficient and to the point.
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 the tool's simplicity (2 required params, no output schema), the description is adequate for basic understanding. However, the lack of behavioral transparency and output details reduces completeness. It suffices but could be better.
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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema (e.g., UN/LOCODE format is already in schema). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it compares ocean carriers for a specific origin-destination pair, ranked by on-time reliability and transit time. This distinguishes it from siblings like carrier_reliability (single carrier) and find_sailings (list sailings).
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?
It provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to decide which line to book.' While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context of deciding between carriers is clear and differentiates from sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of ocean shipping: storms, carrier performance, lane schedules, port conditions, and alerts. Even overlapping areas like carrier reliability and lane comparisons are clearly differentiated by scope and purpose.
All tools use consistent snake_case naming. Most follow a verb_noun or noun_noun pattern, though some start with verbs (e.g., compare_lanes, find_sailings) and others with nouns (e.g., carrier_league, port_congestion). This is predictable but not perfectly uniform.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for the domain of ocean scheduling. Each tool provides meaningful functionality without redundancy, covering storms, carriers, lanes, ports, and alerts.
The tool surface covers core information needs: storms, carrier reliability, lane schedules, port congestion, transit times, and alerts. Minor gaps exist, such as lacking detailed vessel info or carrier-specific data beyond reliability, but the overall coverage is strong for an informational service.
