Skip to main content
Glama
nohosa001-pixel

EUDR Compliance & TRACES-NT Agent

by nohosa001-pixel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

eudr_submit_compliance_bid

Submit a geolocated EUDR compliance bid for an active marketplace RFQ, including farm plots and your USDC price per kg to compete for supplier contracts.

Instructions

Supplier AI Agent submits a competitive, geolocated compliance bid for an active marketplace RFQ, including farm plots and offered USDC price.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rfq_idYesTarget RFQ identifier to bid on.
declared_plotsYesList of geolocated production plot parcels with WGS84 coordinates.
seller_agent_idYesUnique supplier agent identifier.
price_usdc_per_kgYesOffered unit price in USDC per kilogram.
seller_agent_walletYesSupplier EVM wallet address to receive escrow settlement.
estimated_risk_scoreNoSupplier self-attested EUDR risk score (default 5).
compliance_diligence_referenceNoExisting Due Diligence Statement or certification reference.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool submits a bid but omits permissions, binding nature, escrow/funds handling, reversibility, and post-submission effects.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Each clause (supplier agent, bid, active RFQ, farm plots, USDC price) contributes specific meaning.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves out behavioral and return details an agent would need to invoke it safely. Parameter information is covered by the schema, but contextual completeness remains weak.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all 7 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description references farm plots and USDC price but adds no syntax, constraints, or format details beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific verb ('submits') and resource ('compliance bid for an active marketplace RFQ'), with scope ('including farm plots and offered USDC price'). It distinguishes this supplier-side bid submission from sibling eudr_publish_compliance_rfq, which is the buyer-side RFQ publication.

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?

It gives clear context: a supplier AI agent submitting a bid for an active marketplace RFQ. It does not name exclusions or alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5 under the rubric.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools