compareFor one product slug: every cited competitor row its comparison page shows, each with the price as the vendor publishes it, the monthly figure in integer cents where there is one, the vendor page it was read on and the date it was read. Returns an empty list and the reason when the product has no cited rows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The product slug, e.g. "jobora". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it enumerates the exact fields returned, clarifies the monthly figure is in integer cents only where one exists, and discloses that an empty list with a reason is returned when there are no cited rows. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint without contradicting it.
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?
The description is a single dense sentence that packs in all essential information without filler. It is front-loaded with the input scope and then lists the output fields, though the length of the sentence makes it slightly harder to parse than a structured multi-sentence version.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description does a good job of covering return values and the empty-case behavior. It explains each returned field and the reason for an empty list, leaving little ambiguity about what the tool produces.
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%, and the slug parameter is already described with an example. The description reinforces that the slug must identify a single product, but it does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
The description clearly states that the tool returns every cited competitor row for a given product slug, including the price, monthly figure, vendor page, and read date. This is specific enough to distinguish it from generic search or product lookup tools, though it lacks a direct imperative verb like 'get' or 'list'.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling tools such as product, search_catalogue, or hosted_offer. The phrase 'For one product slug' implies a singular input but does not state when this tool is the right choice or when an alternative should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.