Retrieve international trade jurisprudence and arbitration precedents, including WTO disputes, ICSID cases, and US trade rulings, for informed decision-making.
Query international trade jurisprudence precedents embedded in the oracle: WTO DS592 (Indonesia Raw Materials), WTO DS431 (China Rare Earths), ICSID ARB/15/31 (Gabriel Resources), and US CIT Superior Wire (Origin Laundering).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Query' implies a read operation, and listing the embedded precedents gives content context, but the description does not disclose the return format, pagination, or any limitations, leaving the agent guessing at output shape.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the enumerated precedents efficiently. Each element earns its place, though listing four full case citations adds length without much extra decision value.
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 simple 0-parameter list tool this is reasonably complete, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what the returned data looks like (e.g., case summaries, citation lists, rulings). That gap leaves the agent uncertain about the call's result.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the schema offers nothing to document. The description compensates by naming exactly what the tool returns access to (the four precedents), which is the meaningful semantic content an agent needs. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('international trade jurisprudence precedents embedded in the oracle'), then enumerates the exact precedents available (WTO DS592, WTO DS431, ICSID ARB/15/31, US CIT Superior Wire). This clearly distinguishes it from the compliance-verification and feedback 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 description conveys its purpose and content scope, so an agent can infer it is for retrieving precedent case law, but it never explicitly states when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it name exclusions or routing conditions to sibling tools like verify_mineral_lot_compliance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.