Fused port-congestion signal for a port (UN/LOCODE): effective level (mild/moderate/severe), expected added wait in days (for ETA-band widening), a 0–1 confidence, and per-source detail — weiyun broad-AIS analysis + IMF PortWatch throughput + our own AIS wait/density.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | Yes | Port UN/LOCODE, e.g. NLRTM |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It transparently lists data sources (weiyun, IMF PortWatch, own AIS) and output components. However, it omits details like update frequency or any side effects (though likely none).
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 a single dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and packs multiple output details. It could be broken into clearer segments, but it remains concise without fluff.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description adequately explains return values (level, wait days, confidence, per-source detail). For a single-parameter tool, this is fairly complete, though confidence interpretation and wait day precision are not elaborated.
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 the 'port' parameter already described as a UN/LOCODE with an example. The description adds no further semantic depth beyond repeating the purpose.
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 provides a fused port-congestion signal for a given UN/LOCODE, listing output fields (level, wait days, confidence, per-source detail), making it distinct from siblings like port_reliability.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like port_reliability.
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.
