Skip to main content
Glama
seelpeed-debug

export-controls-agent

Assess whether an item is subject to the EAR

assess_ear_jurisdiction

Determine if an item is subject to the EAR by applying the de minimis rule and Foreign Direct Product rules, covering foreign items with zero U.S. content.

Instructions

Determine whether an item is subject to the EAR before doing any classification or licence analysis. Applies the de minimis U.S.-content rule (15 C.F.R. 734.4) and all thirteen Foreign Direct Product rules (734.9) as independent routes. The FDP rules have NO percentage test: a foreign-produced item with zero U.S. content is subject to the EAR if a rule's product scope and destination or end-user scope are both met. The SME rule at 734.9(k) and the Footnote 5 rule at 734.9(e)(3) are the ones that reach Korean-manufactured semiconductor equipment.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skipFdpNo
itemOriginNoU.S.-origin items are subject to the EAR under 734.3 and need no further jurisdiction analysis.foreign
skipDeMinimisNo
foreignItemEccnNoThe foreign-produced item's own ECCN with subparagraph, e.g. 3B001.c, 3A090.a, or EAR99.
foreignItemTypeNocommodity
destinedToCrimeaNo
noDeMinimisFactsNoFacts bearing on the 734.4(a) categories that have no de minimis level at all.
usSoftwareBundledNoFor software: whether it ships bundled with the item. Separately exported U.S. software is never de minimis eligible.
destinationCountryYesDestination country, matched against Part 740 Supplement No. 1.
entityListFootnotesNoEntity List footnote designations of any party, e.g. [1], [4], [5]. Footnote 3 is Russia/Belarus MEU.
category5Part2UsContentNo
containsIcFromSuchPlantNoWhether the commodity contains an integrated circuit produced by such a plant. IC production here includes assembly, testing and packaging. Relevant to 734.9(e)(3) and (k).
entityListFootnotesKnownNoSet true once every party's footnote status has actually been checked on the Entity List.
governmentOfIranIsAPartyNo
usControlledContentPercentNoControlled U.S.-origin content as a percentage, calculated under Supplement No. 2 to Part 734.
forSupercomputerInPrcOrMacauNo
producedUsingUsTechnologyEccnsNoECCNs of the U.S.-origin technology or software used to PRODUCE the item, e.g. ['3E992']. This is the single most decisive input for FDP and is about production inputs, not the item's own content.
commingledTechnologyReportFiledNoWhether the one-time BIS report for commingled technology has been filed. Required before relying on de minimis for technology.
producedUsingUsTechnologyInAnyDorENoSet when production used U.S.-origin technology or software in any product group D or E ECCN.
recipientAtAdvancedNodeFacilityInMacauOrD5NoRecipient is at a facility in Macau or Country Group D:5 producing logic or DRAM advanced-node ICs.
producedByPlantThatIsDirectProductOfUsTechnologyNoWhether the producing plant, or a major component of it, is itself a direct product of U.S.-origin technology or software.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It meaningfully reveals that the FDP rules have no percentage test, that zero U.S.-content items can still be subject to the EAR, that the rules operate as independent routes, and that specific rules reach Korean-manufactured semiconductor equipment. This goes well beyond a generic statement, though it does not describe the output form or how indeterminate facts are handled.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and timing before explaining the legal rules. Every sentence carries substantive information: purpose, applicable rules, the no-percentage-test caveat, and the Korea-relevant rules. There is no filler or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a complex tool with 21 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description gives strong legal context but omits operational essentials such as the required destinationCountry input, how to handle unknown facts, and what the determination output looks like. It is adequate for high-level orientation but not fully sufficient for correct invocation in all cases.

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 coverage is 67%, so the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds important interpretive context, such as FDP having no percentage test and de minimis applying U.S.-content percentage, which helps agents understand usControlledContentPercent and producedUsingUsTechnologyEccns. However, it does not systematically compensate for the remaining undocumented parameters or map legal concepts to specific input fields.

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 and resource: 'Determine whether an item is subject to the EAR' and situates it before classification or license analysis. It distinguishes this jurisdiction-assessment tool from siblings like classify_eccn and determine_license_requirement by naming the exact legal rules it applies.

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 explicitly says to use this tool 'before doing any classification or licence analysis,' giving clear workflow context. It names the de minimis and Foreign Direct Product rules as the applicable tests, though it does not state when not to use it or name an alternative tool for follow-on steps.

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