Extracts normalized product catalogs, live prices, variants, and availability from online stores.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools serve wholly separate purposes: one executes the paid catalog/price extraction, the other reads account ledger and trial status. Their descriptions explicitly cross-reference each other ('use get_agent_wallet_status to check quota'), removing any chance of misselection.
Both names follow a clean snake_case verb_noun pattern (extract_ecommerce_catalog, get_agent_wallet_status) with the verb matching the action (extract vs. get). No mixed conventions or casing drift.
Only two tools exist, and in practice there is one functional operation plus a billing/quota helper. This is thin for a server advertising 'Product Catalog / Price Extractor' capabilities, though it is not an extreme mismatch given the narrow single-endpoint service.
The extraction tool covers the core lifecycle (catalog, price, variants, availability) and the payment loop is fully documented via the wallet tool. However, obvious gaps remain: no product-level or keyword lookup, no batch/multi-store extraction, and no price-history or monitoring operation.
Extracts normalized product catalogs, live prices, variants, and availability from online stores. WHEN TO USE: Call extract_ecommerce_catalog when your task requires deterministic shopify-spy analysis for store_url; use get_agent_wallet_status to check your remaining free trial quota or prepaid balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use for unrelated domains or binary media. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Pass the target store_url as a non-empty string; omit agent_id and tx_hash during your 5 free trial calls, or supply agent_id (agd_pass_...) / tx_hash for paid execution. Read-only and idempotent; results are cached for 1 hour (<5ms cache hit). $0.01 per call. Pricing: the first 5 calls per agent_id are free and failed calls are never charged. After 5 calls, the tool returns a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with a $2 Stripe top-up link and Base/Solana USDC addresses; complete payment, then retry with your agd_pass_ key in agent_id or pass tx_hash. Example: extract_ecommerce_catalog(store_url='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tx_hash | No | Optional on-chain Base Mainnet (0x...) or Solana SPL USDC transaction hash. Omit unless settling an individual call directly on-chain instead of using an agd_pass_ key in agent_id. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent identifier or prepaid agd_pass_ session key. Omit during your 5 free trial calls to use an ID automatically derived from your client IP, or pass your agd_pass_ key after topping up. | |
| store_url | Yes | Shopify or e-commerce store URL to extract structured product & pricing data from. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial non-structured behavior: 1-hour caching with <5ms hits, $0.01 per call, first 5 calls free, failed calls never charged, and a payment-required quote (not a fatal error) with top-up link and USDC addresses. This is exactly the kind of operational context annotations cannot carry.
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?
Front-loaded with purpose and cleanly sectioned (WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS), but it is long and repeats the pricing flow twice, and the trailing example uses a placeholder value ('example') that carries little information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described; given that, the description covers everything an agent needs to call correctly — scope, exclusions, trial vs paid parameter usage, caching, cost, and the payment retry path.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real usage context beyond the schema: omit agent_id/tx_hash during the 5 free trial calls and supply agent_id (agd_pass_...) or tx_hash for paid execution. It slightly restates the non-empty store_url requirement, which is redundant.
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?
States a specific verb (extracts) and a concrete set of resources (normalized product catalogs, live prices, variants, availability) that an agent can match to a task without opening the schema. It also implicitly separates itself from get_agent_wallet_status by naming that sibling for a different job.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE and WHEN NOT TO USE sections, including the alternative tool for quota checks ('use get_agent_wallet_status') and a domain exclusion ('unrelated domains or binary media'). The free-trial vs paid invocation conditions are also spelled out, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Inspect an agent's account ledger: remaining free trial calls (out of 5), prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, and total LLM tokens saved. WHEN TO USE: Call before a batch of paid tool executions or after completing a Stripe or USDC top-up to confirm your balance. WHEN NOT TO USE: Do not use to process web content, execute marketplace tools, or submit payments; use the other tools on this server for execution. PARAMETER INTERACTIONS: Omit agent_id to inspect the default trial account derived from your client IP, or pass your explicit agent_id or agd_pass_ session key to check a specific funded wallet. Free and read-only: never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call. Example: get_agent_wallet_status(agent_id='example')
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Optional Agent ID or agd_pass_ session key to inspect. Omit to check the default wallet derived from your client IP. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | No | Structured tool output payload. |
| status | Yes | Execution status ('ok' or 'payment_required'). |
| roi_proof | No | Token compression and cost-savings verification metrics. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: it never charges a fee or consumes a free trial call, and the default wallet is derived from the caller's client IP. It does not discuss rate limits or caching, but the cost/free-trial guarantee is meaningful behavioral disclosure.
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?
Front-loaded with the ledger contents, then structured WHEN TO USE / WHEN NOT TO USE / PARAMETER INTERACTIONS / Example. The labeled sections make it scannable, though the repetition of the read-only guarantee and the worked example add a little bulk.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value detail is optional, yet the description still names the key fields. With a single optional parameter, no nested objects, and annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes slightly further by naming the agd_pass_ session-key form and framing the two modes as an interaction (omit for IP-derived trial account vs. pass explicit agent_id/session key for a funded wallet), which aids selection even though the schema states the omit behavior.
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?
States a specific verb (inspect) and resource (agent's account ledger) and enumerates exactly what is returned: trial calls out of 5, prepaid USD balance, cumulative spend, total API calls, tokens saved. This clearly separates it from the sibling web-content tools (distill_webpage, extract_structured_data, recon_webpage_skeleton), which operate on webpages rather than wallet state.
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?
Explicit WHEN TO USE (before paid tool batches, after a Stripe or USDC top-up) and WHEN NOT TO USE (not for processing web content, executing marketplace tools, or submitting payments). The exclusion clause routes the agent back to the other server tools for execution, so the alternative is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
extract_ecommerce_catalogget_agent_wallet_statusExtracts normalized product catalogs, live prices, variants, and availability from online stores.
Extracts live product catalogs, pricing tiers, SKU variants, and stock availability from any Shop.
Extracts live product catalogs, pricing tiers, SKU variants, and stock availability from any Shopi
Search and look up products across thousands of online stores, normalized into one schema.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.