Compare a product's price across merchants. Returns offers plus lowest/highest, all linking to the LMK product page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idOrSlug | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offers | Yes | ||
| product | Yes | An LMK catalog product. `url` is always an LMK product-page link. | |
| lowestPrice | No | ||
| highestPrice | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns offers plus lowest/highest and that links go to the LMK product page, which is helpful behavioral context.
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 sentence of 18 words, front-loading the purpose and efficiently stating the return content. No wasted words.
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?
Given the simple input (one parameter) and presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers purpose and basic return structure. It lacks error handling or edge case info, but is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.
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?
The only parameter 'idOrSlug' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The description does not explain its format or how to obtain it; the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory but the description should provide more detail.
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 uses a specific verb ('compare') and resource ('product's price across merchants'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_product' or 'get_price_history' by focusing on multi-merchant comparison.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and description, but no 'when-not-to-use' or alternative tool references are provided.
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.
Most tools are distinct, but 'fetch' and 'get_product' have overlapping functionality (both provide full detail and buying options), and 'search' vs 'search_catalog' could confuse agents about which to use for general search. Otherwise clear.
Predominantly uses 'get_' prefix for retrieval tools and 'search' for search tools, but 'fetch' and 'lookup_catalog' deviate slightly from the pattern, reducing consistency.
13 tools is well-scoped for a commerce server covering product discovery, pricing, deals, collections, and gift ideas without being overwhelming or sparse.
Covers key product research and price comparison workflows, but lacks tools for user interaction (e.g., wishlists, purchasing) or multi-product comparisons, which would enhance completeness.
