Deal Radar MCP Server

compare_prices

Compare a product query across supported platforms to identify the lowest effective price and potential savings. Use it to evaluate total costs after bank and coupon offers.

Instructions

Compare a product query across all supported platforms to find the lowest effective price and potential savings.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "compare_prices"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Product name or model to compare (e.g., "Apple iPad 10th Gen 64GB")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose scope (all supported platforms) and the computed metric ("effective price" plus "potential savings"), but leaves "effective" undefined (shipping? tax? discounts?), does not confirm the operation is read-only/non-mutating, and says nothing about behavior when a platform is unavailable.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no redundant wording. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, so conciseness is a strength but not exemplary.

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 an aggregation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should carry the return shape (does it return per-platform prices, or just the winner and source?) and any preconditions. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the response structure for a multi-source comparison.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents its format with an example. The description adds only the framing that the query is evaluated against all platforms, which is marginal meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("Compare") and resource ("a product query across all supported platforms") and names the outcome ("lowest effective price and potential savings"), so the agent knows this is a cross-platform price aggregation tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like search_deals or get_price_history, which is the only missing piece.

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?

Usage is implied by "across all supported platforms" and "lowest effective price," which suggests using this for cross-store price comparison rather than a single-store lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of a prerequisite such as configured store adapters, and no alternative named despite several plausible alternatives among the siblings.

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