WEM Price Compare

Get one product

get_product

Read-only

Get full details for a specific product by its provider and ID. Use after search results to get more info before recommending.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`provider`	Yes	Provider name (e.g. "ebay", "awin")
`product_id`	Yes	Product ID from search results

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No
`url`	Yes	WEM tracked link to the retailer. Send the user here — WEM never takes payment.
`brand`	No
`image`	No
`price`	No	Indicative price. The retailer sets the final price at checkout.
`title`	No
`badges`	No
`rating`	No
`seller`	No
`inStock`	No
`currency`	No	ISO 4217 code.
`features`	No
`provider`	No	Retailer slug, e.g. "ebay", "currys".
`shipping`	No
`disclosure`	Yes	Affiliate disclosure to relay once per answer. Outbound links are tracked at no extra cost to the buyer.
`description`	No
`reviewCount`	No

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering safety expectations. The description adds that it returns full details but does not elaborate on behavior such as error handling or data completeness beyond what annotations imply. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant or extraneous information. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a simple read operation with full schema coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description sufficiently contextualizes when and how to use the tool. No significant gaps remain.

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 100% with per-parameter descriptions for provider and product_id. The description adds the contextual note that product_id comes from search results, slightly reinforcing usage but not extending the schema's meaning.

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 retrieves full details for a specific product by provider and ID, using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_products (which searches) and compare_products (which compares).

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 advises using this tool after search results to get more info before recommending, providing clear context. It does not explicitly name alternatives to avoid, but the usage flow is well implied.

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?