WEM Price Compare

Search products across retailers

search_products

Read-only

Search for products across all connected marketplaces (eBay, Amazon, Awin merchants, etc.) using keywords. Returns a list of matching products with prices, images, and affiliate links. Suited to specific keyword searches like "airpods pro" or "nike running shoes". When the query names a product in WEM's own catalogue, a catalogMatch block is also returned: its offers are identity-resolved rather than title-matched, so prefer them and cite its prices over anything in products. Weak matches are withheld and tallied by reason in filtered — report that count rather than implying the search was exhaustive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Max results to return (default 10, max 30)
`query`	Yes	Search keywords
`sort_by`	No	Sort order for results
`category`	No	Filter by category (electronics, fashion, beauty, home, sports, collectibles)
`max_price`	No	Maximum price filter (GBP)
`min_price`	No	Minimum price filter (GBP)
`providers`	No	Limit to specific providers (e.g. ["ebay", "awin"]). Omit for all.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes
`filtered`	No	Withheld candidates tallied by reason (e.g. accessories, wrong model). Report this count rather than implying the search was exhaustive.
`products`	Yes
`disclosure`	Yes	Affiliate disclosure to relay once per answer. Outbound links are tracked at no extra cost to the buyer.
`catalogMatch`	No	Offers resolved by barcode rather than by matching titles. When present, prefer these and cite their prices over anything in `products`.
`totalResults`	Yes	Count of products returned, after weak matches were withheld.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Describes the return structure including the catalogMatch block and the filtered counts, and explains the identity-resolution logic, which goes beyond the basic annotations to clarify expected behavior.

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 detailed yet efficient, covering all essential aspects in five concise sentences without redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the main return elements (products, catalogMatch, filtered) and their implications, making it complete for a search tool.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all parameters, so the description adds little beyond noting that queries should be specific keywords, which only subtly informs parameter usage.

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?

Clearly states it searches for products across all connected marketplaces, distinguishing it from specialized siblings like compare_offers or find_lowest_price.

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?

Explicitly states it is suited to specific keyword searches and provides guidance on handling catalogMatch (prefer it) and filtered results (report count), giving clear when-to-use and interpretation instructions.

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?