Agent Utilities Hosted

by dev.workers.agent-utilities.agent-utilities

commerce_offer_extract

Read-only

Extract bounded Product offers from supplied JSON-LD HTML with source pointers, missing-price warnings and separate aggregate ranges. FREE during validation. No key, credits or wallet. Existing source and input limits apply.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`input`	Yes
`requestId`	No	Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.
`maxPriceMicroUsd`	No	Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	Yes
`offers`	Yes
`truncated`	Yes
`invalidBlocks`	Yes
`productsFound`	Yes
`unsupportedOffers`	Yes
`unresolvedReferences`	Yes
`productsWithoutOffers`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 6, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / description

Previous value: -"Explicit maximum new debit; 0 means recovery only."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."

removedInput schema / properties / maxPriceMicroUsd / maximum
```
Removed value: -999999999999
```

changedInput schema / properties / requestId / description

Previous value: -"Persist the ID returned by agent_utilities_prepare. Reuse after uncertainty."New value: +"Optional legacy field; ignored in free mode."

removedInput schema / properties / requestId / pattern
```
Removed value: -"^\\d{13}_[A-Za-z0-9_-]{16,80}$"
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "input",
-  "requestId",
-  "maxPriceMicroUsd"
-]New value: +[
+  "input"
+]

First observedSep 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing bounded output, missing-price warnings, separate aggregate ranges, and the free/no-key/no-wallet access model. It does not contradict the annotations, though the non-idempotent hint for a pure extraction is unexplained.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, followed by compact access-model notes. Every clause carries information, though the three short access-mode sentences could be merged without loss.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description still flags aggregate-range separation and missing-price warnings. The free-mode/limit context is present; only the relationship to sibling extraction tools is left implicit.

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%, and the two legacy fields are already documented inline. The description hints at "bounded" offers (maxOffers) and "input limits," but adds no meaning for baseUrl or maxOffers beyond what the schema states, so it neither compensates for nor extends the partial coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb ("Extract") plus resource ("bounded Product offers from supplied JSON-LD HTML") and the output characteristics (source pointers, missing-price warnings, aggregate ranges). An agent can tell it apart from a generic JSON-LD or page extractor, though no sibling is named to sharpen the distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the usage context (you already have JSON-LD HTML and want Product offers), but it never states when to choose this over html_jsonld, commerce_main_product, or agent_utilities_offer_preview. No exclusions or alternatives are given, so routing relies on inference.

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

All Agent Utilities Hosted tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?