import_trendsMonthly U.S. imports of an HS code: last_month_value_usd, yoy_month_pct, last_12m_vs_prior_12m_pct, top_origins_last_month[] {country, value_usd, share_pct, unit_value_usd}, monthly[]. $0.003/call. Use for U.S. import value, unit value and origin countries of a product by HS code (Census).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| hs | Yes | HS code, 2/4/6/10 digits, e.g. 9503 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses monthly cadence, Census provenance, a $0.003 per-call charge, and the principal result fields. Data-release lag, historical coverage, and any request limits remain unspecified.
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 compact and front-loaded with the data scope, followed by useful output details, cost, and an explicit use case. Despite its density, each element supports selection, invocation, or result interpretation.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool, it supplies the source, cadence, main outputs, intended use, and price, which is enough to select and invoke it confidently. Because there is no output schema, the undefined contents of monthly[] and unspecified freshness or coverage are modest remaining gaps.
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?
The schema already fully documents the sole hs parameter, including accepted digit lengths and an example. The description reiterates that lookups are by HS code but adds no further parameter meaning, so the high-coverage baseline applies.
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 precisely identifies the resource and scope: monthly U.S. imports for a product HS code, sourced from Census. Naming import values, unit values, origins, and trend metrics makes its purpose unambiguous among the siblings.
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?
The explicit 'Use for' sentence identifies the intended questions: U.S. import value, unit value, and origin countries by HS code. It provides no when-not guidance or alternative tool, but none is necessary for correct basic selection.
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.