Skip to main content
Glama

qualify_fta_origin

Check if your product qualifies for FTA preferences by evaluating its rule of origin against the agreement's requirements, including regional value content, tariff shift, and de-minimis tolerance.

Instructions

Does your product actually QUALIFY for the FTA preference? The expensive detail iter14's sourcing/landed-cost silently assumes away: the USMCA / EVFTA / CETA / RCEP / KORUS preferential (usually 0%) duty applies ONLY if the good MEETS the agreement's RULE OF ORIGIN — and a huge share of would-be-preferential imports FAIL it (Chinese fabric cut in Vietnam misses EVFTA's yarn-forward rule; a Mexican assembly that's 60% imported misses USMCA's RVC). Give the product (or HS), the country of MANUFACTURE, the destination market, and the bill of MATERIALS (each input's value + origin + optional HS), and it computes against the resolved FTA's product rule: REGIONAL VALUE CONTENT (both transaction-value and net-cost methods vs the threshold), TARIFF SHIFT / change in tariff classification (CC chapter / CTH heading / CTSH subheading), DE-MINIMIS tolerance, and agreement-specific rules (USMCA autos 75% RVC + steel/aluminium; EVFTA apparel yarn-forward). It returns the VERDICT — QUALIFIES or NOT, WHY, exactly how many RVC points (and how much $) you're short, and the concrete paths to qualify. Links to iter4 (HS) and iter14 (sourcing/duty). ⚠️ Rules of origin are among the most complex parts of trade law — MODELED, INDICATIVE qualification aid, NOT a legal origin determination; the agreement's PSR annex + a licensed broker govern the binding answer, and a wrong preference claim carries duty + penalty exposure (regla 7). PREMIUM: pay per call with x402 (USDC on Base) or a prepaid key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
productNoProduct description to classify (e.g. 'cotton t-shirt'). Provide this OR hs_code.
hs_codeNoExplicit HS code (6+ digits) of the finished good. Provide this OR product.
manufacture_countryYesCountry where the finished good is MADE (ISO2 like 'VN' or a name). REQUIRED.
destinationYesDestination market — country (ISO2/name) or a port. Its bloc sets the FTA. REQUIRED.
transaction_valueYesFOB value of the FINISHED good in USD (the RVC denominator). REQUIRED.
materialsYesBill of materials: each { description, value (USD), origin (ISO2/name), hs_code? }. REQUIRED.
net_cost_fractionNoNet cost as a fraction of transaction value for the net-cost RVC method (default 0.85). Optional.
Behavior5/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description is highly transparent, explaining the complex computation (RVC, tariff shift, de-minimis) and disclosing limitations (not a legal determination, risk of wrong claims). It also mentions premium pricing and links to other iter tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is thorough but somewhat lengthy. It is well-structured, starting with a key question and then detailing the function, examples, and warnings. Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly more concise. Still, for the complexity, it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description fully explains the return values: verdict, points short, paths to qualify. It also references other iter tools for further steps. The description is self-contained and complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining each parameter's role in the FTA calculation (e.g., transaction_value is FOB denominator, materials is bill of materials). It also clarifies optional parameters like net_cost_fraction with a default value.

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's purpose: determining if a product qualifies for FTA preference. It explains the specific function (computing RVC, tariff shift, etc.) and distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning links to iter4 and iter14, though it does not explicitly differentiate from other tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (checking FTA origin) and includes examples of scenarios. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the detailed context implies appropriate usage. No explicit alternatives are mentioned, but the sibling list suggests uniqueness.

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