Skip to main content
Glama

evaluate_bids

Evaluate carrier bids on freight lanes by scoring cost, reliability, and coverage. Award each lane to the most credible carrier while flagging low-ball bids.

Instructions

Evaluate carrier BIDS on a freight tender and pick the best award per lane. Pass your lanes (with annual volumes) and the bids each carrier submitted (carrier + all-in rate, optionally transit/sailings/free-days). For each lane it scores every bid on COST + RELIABILITY (the carrier's expected on-time performance from iter8 carrier matching) + COVERAGE (does it actually serve the corridor), DETECTS LOW-BALLS — a bid implausibly under the lane's modeled market band, the kind that gets rolled or surcharged back up and won't hold — by scoring them DOWN on credibility, and picks the best CREDIBLE award per lane. At the network level it shows the awarded annual cost vs the naive-cheapest cost (the cost of choosing credible over chasing a low-ball) and how many low-balls it flagged. Honest (regla 7): a modeled decision aid, not a procurement decision — verify rates & service commitments contractually. PREMIUM: pay per call with x402 (USDC on Base) or a prepaid key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
lanesYesLanes with bids. Each: { origin_port, dest_port, annual_volume, container_type?, bids: [ { carrier, rate, transit_days?, sailings_per_week?, free_days? } ] }.
priorityNoScoring weighting: 'cost', 'reliability' or 'balanced' (default).
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: scoring on cost, reliability, and coverage; detecting and penalizing low-balls; selecting credible awards; and providing network-level cost comparisons. It also clarifies it is a modeled decision aid, not a procurement decision.

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 description is lengthy and includes extraneous details like 'Honest (regla 7)' and payment information, which add clutter. It front-loads the main purpose but could be trimmed for better conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the output (best credible award per lane, network cost comparison, low-ball flags) and addresses the tool's limitations. It is sufficiently complete for a tool with two parameters, though a note on pagination or result format could enhance completeness.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with property descriptions for 'lanes' and 'priority'. The description adds operational context (e.g., annual volumes, carrier bids) but does not significantly augment the schema's parameter meaning beyond what is already described.

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?

The description clearly states the tool evaluates carrier bids on a freight tender to pick the best award per lane. It provides specific details on inputs (lanes with bids) and outputs (scored awards, network cost comparison, low-ball flags), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'select_provider' or 'carrier_recommendation'.

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?

The description indicates when to use the tool (when evaluating bids on a tender) and notes it is a decision aid, not a procurement decision. It advises verifying rates contractually but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/freight-pulse'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server