search_productsSearch live product listings by query across Google Shopping, eBay, Best Buy, and Target; get prices, merchants, and URLs sorted low to high for comparison.
Find candidate products across Google Shopping (SerpApi), eBay, Best Buy, and Target. data: [{title, price, merchant, url, product_id}] sorted by price ascending.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| num | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that results are aggregated across four merchants and sorted by price ascending, but says nothing about authentication, rate limits, partial-source failures, or pagination behavior.
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?
Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The return-shape sentence is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, which keeps it from a 5.
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?
The output schema covers return values, so restating the data shape is optional, but the description still omits query format and result-count semantics. For a 2-parameter search tool with no annotations, that leaves a real gap.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description explains neither parameter. It never says what form the query takes (keyword, UPC, model number) or what num controls, leaving both parameters opaque.
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?
States a specific verb ('Find candidate products') and names the exact sources searched (Google Shopping, eBay, Best Buy, Target). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_prices or get_deals, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus compare_prices, get_deals, or extract_product, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.