Skip to main content
Glama

Search Alternatives In Budget

products.search.alternatives
Read-only

Find visually similar substitute products for a known fashion item within a target price bracket, using the item's handle to return alternative styles in the same category.

Instructions

Find visual substitute products within a designated price bracket for a given fashion item handle using visual image similarity.

PURPOSE & DISAMBIGUATION:

  • Retrieves catalog items visually similar to an existing product (e.g. finding similar shirts or jackets) constrained to a target budget tier.

  • Distinct from 'products.search.text': Use this tool when substituting a specific known item by handle, NOT for free-text search queries.

  • Distinct from 'products.search.image_url' / 'products.search.image_upload': Use this tool when referencing an existing catalog item handle, NOT for user-uploaded or external images.

  • Distinct from 'looks.curation.recommend': Use this tool to find replacement substitutes for the same garment category, NOT for pairing complementary outfit pieces.

WHEN TO USE:

  • When a shopper likes a product but requests cheaper alternatives, higher-end alternatives, or similar styles in a specific price bracket (e.g., 'show cheaper alternatives for this shirt under 1500').

WHEN NOT TO USE:

  • Do NOT use for general keyword discovery without a source product handle (use 'products.search.text').

  • Do NOT use to assemble a full outfit / lookbook (use 'looks.curation.recommend' or 'looks.curation.by_occasion').

BEHAVIOR & SAFETY:

  • Read-only and idempotent with no persistent side effects.

  • Automatically fetches the source product's primary image embedding and queries the catalog for visual matches within the requested price range.

  • Excludes the source product handle from returned alternatives.

  • Returns clean PoloPan purchase permalinks (https://s.polopan.com/p/{handle}).

PARAMETERS & CONSTRAINTS:

  • 'handle' (string, required): The unique identifier of the source product to find alternatives for.

  • 'budget_range' (enum, default '1501-3000'): Price tier bracket ('0-1500', '1501-3000', '3001-5000', '5000+').

  • 'limit' (integer 1-100, default 6): Maximum number of alternative products returned in the final list.

  • 'page' (integer >= 1, default 1): Pagination page number for the search pool.

  • 'page_size' (integer 1-100, default 8): Number of candidate items fetched per page before limit filtering.

  • 'sort_by' (enum, default 'relevance'): Ranking attribute ('relevance', 'price', 'title').

  • 'sort_order' (enum, default 'desc'): Sort order direction ('asc' or 'desc').

  • 'personalize' (boolean, default false): Whether to apply personalization weights.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPagination page number (1-indexed)
limitNoMaximum number of filtered alternative products to return in the result (1-100)
handleYesThe unique product handle identifier to find visual alternatives for (e.g. 'solid-cotton-shirt')
sort_byNoSorting attribute for the visual matches: 'relevance', 'price', or 'title'relevance
page_sizeNoNumber of candidate items to fetch per backend page (1-100)
sort_orderNoSort direction: 'asc' for ascending, 'desc' for descendingdesc
personalizeNoWhether to apply personalized user ranking to the results
budget_rangeNoTarget price bracket filter in local currency: '0-1500', '1501-3000', '3001-5000', or '5000+'1501-3000

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.5

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/destructiveHint annotations by disclosing that the tool is idempotent, automatically fetches the source product's primary image embedding, excludes the source product handle from results, and returns clean PoloPan purchase permalinks. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model without needing to infer side effects or output format.

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?

The description is longer than average but well-organized with clear headings: PURPOSE & DISAMBIGUATION, WHEN TO USE, WHEN NOT TO USE, BEHAVIOR & SAFETY, and PARAMETERS & CONSTRAINTS. The most important information is front-loaded, and each section earns its place, though the parameter section could be trimmed since it duplicates the schema.

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?

Given the tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and several sibling tools, the description covers purpose, disambiguation, usage boundaries, behavior, and parameter constraints thoroughly. It also mentions the return value shape (permalinks), though it does not fully describe the complete response structure or error behavior, which would be useful in the absence of an output schema.

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%, so the input schema already documents every parameter, its type, default, and constraints. The description's PARAMETERS & CONSTRAINTS section largely restates this information, with only minor additions such as clarifying that page_size is 'before limit filtering' and that page refers to the 'search pool'. This is helpful but mostly redundant with the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find visual substitute products within a designated price bracket for a given fashion item handle using visual image similarity.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming products.search.text, products.search.image_url, products.search.image_upload, and looks.curation.recommend, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is and is not.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description provides explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'WHEN NOT TO USE' sections, including concrete examples like 'show cheaper alternatives for this shirt under 1500'. It also names the exact alternative tools to use instead in excluded cases, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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