WEM Price Compare

Compare retailer offers for one product

compare_offers

Read-only

Exact multi-retailer offers for one product from WEM's own catalogue, cheapest first, with a 90-day price-history low. Identity is resolved by barcode or catalogue slug — no text matching — so every offer IS the product, and the lookup spends no retailer API quota. Use this FIRST when you have a barcode (EAN/UPC/GTIN) or a wem3.ai/pl/{slug} URL; fall back to search_products when the product is not in the catalogue yet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`gtin`	No	Product barcode: EAN-13, UPC-A, EAN-8 or GTIN-14. Preferred key.
`slug`	No	WEM canonical product slug, as in wem3.ai/pl/{slug}.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offers`	Yes	Ascending by price. Every row IS the product — resolved by barcode, not by title.
`source`	Yes
`product`	Yes
`currency`	No
`lowPrice`	No
`highPrice`	No
`disclosure`	Yes	Affiliate disclosure to relay once per answer. Outbound links are tracked at no extra cost to the buyer.
`priceHistory`	Yes	The 90-day low, for telling a real discount from a repackaged one.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only annotations, it discloses exact-match identity semantics ('every offer IS the product'), no retailer API quota cost, and the 90-day price-history behavior. These are meaningful operational traits not visible from annotations or schema.

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, front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place: first the core function, then the identity semantics, then the explicit usage guidance and fallback. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is complete for most operational needs: what it returns, ordering, identity guarantee, cost implications, and when to use it. It only leaves minor ambiguity around the one-of-parameter requirement since neither gtin nor slug is marked required in the schema.

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 schema already provides complete descriptions for gtin and slug with 'Preferred key' and URL format details. The description reinforces the barcode-or-slug resolution model but does not need to add much beyond the 100% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Exact multi-retailer offers for one product from WEM's own catalogue'. It further clarifies the output ('cheapest first, with a 90-day price-history low') and differentiates from search tools by stressing 'no text matching'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: 'Use this FIRST when you have a barcode... or a wem3.ai/pl/{slug} URL; fall back to search_products when the product is not in the catalogue yet.' This includes a positive trigger and a named alternative.

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

All WEM Price Compare tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool targets a distinct action: searching, semantic searching, retrieving categories or product details, comparing offers, comparing products, finding a single lowest price, and verifying a claim. The only mild ambiguity is between search_products and semantic_search, and between compare_offers and find_lowest_price, but the descriptions provide enough separation for an agent to choose correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern such as compare_offers, get_product, search_products, and verify_offer. The main deviation is semantic_search, which is adjective_noun rather than verb_noun, making it the one inconsistent name in an otherwise predictable set.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is a well-scoped size for a price-comparison server. Each tool covers a meaningful part of the workflow without redundancy or unnecessary breadth.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers product discovery, category browsing, detailed product retrieval, multi-offer comparison, side-by-side product comparison, lowest-price recommendation, and price-claim verification. The main gap is the lack of a dedicated price-history tool, even though a 90-day price low is referenced in compare_offers, but this is not a blocking omission for the core comparison workflow.

Resources

Need Help?