AI Commerce Intelligence

ace_check

Free bounded ACE Check. ACE Check remains the product-level decision surface (APPROVE/REJECT/UNKNOWN) while each structured claim receives PROVED/CONTRADICTED/SOURCE_CONFLICT/STALE/VERIFY_MORE/UNVERIFIABLE. Legacy required_terms remain supported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`claims`	No
`region`	No
`country`	No	US
`currency`	No
`language`	No
`max_price`	No
`min_price`	No
`providers`	No
`postal_code`	No
`candidate_ids`	No
`excluded_terms`	No
`required_terms`	No
`preferred_terms`	No
`auto_compile_claims`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 4, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / providers / items / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "shopify_global",
-  "amazon_creators"
-]New value: +[
+  "shopify_global",
+  "ebay_browse",
+  "amazon_creators"
+]

changedInput schema / properties / providers / maxItems
```
Previous value: -2New value: +3
```

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / language

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 35,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / postal_code

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 24,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / region

Added value: +{
+  "maxLength": 80,
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedSep 3, 2026
- changedInput schema / properties / candidate_ids / maxItems
```
Previous value: -5New value: +12
```
- changedInput schema / properties / limit / default
```
Previous value: -5New value: +12
```
- changedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Previous value: -5New value: +12
```

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / auto_compile_claims

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / claims

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "aliases": {
+        "items": {
+          "maxLength": 120,
+          "minLength": 1,
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "maxItems": 12,
+        "type": "array"
+      },
+      "attribute": {
+        "maxLength": 80,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "closed_world": {
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "maxLength": 80,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "kind": {
+        "enum": [
+          "auto",
+          "number",
+          "text",
+          "boolean",
+          "exists"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "max_age_seconds": {
+        "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+        "maximum": 315360000,
+        "type": "integer"
+      },
+      "operator": {
+        "default": "eq",
+        "enum": [
+          "eq",
+          "neq",
+          "gte",
+          "gt",
+          "lte",
+          "lt",
+          "contains",
+          "not_contains",
+          "exists"
+        ],
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "required": {
+        "default": true,
+        "type": "boolean"
+      },
+      "unit": {
+        "maxLength": 20,
+        "minLength": 1,
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "value": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "maxLength": 240,
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "number"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "boolean"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "attribute"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 40,
+  "type": "array"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / providers

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "shopify_global",
+      "amazon_creators"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 2,
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: the decision vocabulary, the 'free bounded' nature, and continued legacy support. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, what 'bounded' limits actually are, whether external providers get consulted, and what happens when limits are hit or a claim comes back UNVERIFIABLE.

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?

Three compact sentences with the 'free bounded' qualifier front-loaded and no wasted bulk. Minor blemish: 'remains the product-level decision surface' is prose-y and partially restates the tool's own name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool (16 parameters, a 12-field claims array, no output schema, no annotations) yet the description is one short paragraph. It names the verdict vocabularies but does not explain claim verification semantics, limit behavior, or how this tool relates to the decision-adjacent siblings, so an agent lacks enough context to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 16 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it only notes that required_terms is legacy. The remaining 15 parameters (claims structure, closed_world, max_age_seconds, auto_compile_claims, providers, price bounds, etc.) receive no explanation in either the schema or the description, forcing the agent to guess at their semantics.

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?

The description states a specific resource ('ACE Check') and the output taxonomy: a product-level APPROVE/REJECT/UNKNOWN decision plus per-claim verdicts (PROVED/CONTRADICTED/SOURCE_CONFLICT/STALE/VERIFY_MORE/UNVERIFIABLE). This makes the tool's function reasonably clear, though 'ACE' is undefined jargon and the description does not differentiate it from siblings like route_commerce_decision or commerce_preflight.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use ace_check versus its siblings. It never names alternatives, conditions, or exclusions; the only usage-adjacent note is that legacy required_terms remain supported, which is a compatibility remark, not a selection guide. An agent cannot tell whether to pick this over commerce_preflight or verify_global_offer.

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

All AI Commerce Intelligence 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

B3.4/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools target distinct workflow stages (discovery, identity, claims, decision, referral), and the detailed descriptions help separate them. However, ace_check and commerce_preflight both expose ACE Verdict decisions, and verify_global_offer is an explicitly legacy alternative to commerce_preflight, so an agent can still misselect among the verification/decision tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are readable snake_case, and action tools use a verb_object pattern while query/metadata tools use noun phrases. The split is not chaotic, but it is inconsistent (e.g., product_discovery vs resolve_product_identity), and the commerce_/commercial_ prefix variation adds a minor wrinkle.

Tool Count4/5

Fifteen tools is at the upper end of a well-scoped service and is reasonable for a broad commerce intelligence domain. The count feels slightly heavy because there are several descriptive/policy tools and at least one legacy overlap (verify_global_offer) that could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core pre-purchase workflow: discovery, identity resolution, claim compilation, verification, recalls, merchant readiness, trust, referrals, and routing. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit claim-management or decision-status retrieval separate from the decision products, but these do not create dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?