DigiSnap-MCP

compare_offers

Compares normalized offers for specified product and store IDs to identify price differences and value options.

Instructions

Compare normalized offers across the supplied store products.

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": {
      "product_ids": "<product_ids>",
      "store_ids": "<store_ids>"
    },
    "name": "compare_offers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`store_ids`	Yes
`product_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0Sep 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the operation is read-only (presumably), what "normalized" means, whether results are ranked, or anything about cost, auth, or return behavior. Only the word "Compare" implies a non-mutating intent.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined trimming.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should explain inputs, comparison semantics, and likely output. It delivers none of these, leaving an agent unable to predict what comparing offers actually returns or how it differs from compare_products.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented required parameters (product_ids, store_ids). It only vaguely alludes to "store products" without explaining that store_ids and product_ids are arrays, what identifiers are valid, or how the two sets combine during comparison.

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

Purpose3/5

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

States a specific verb ("Compare") and resource ("normalized offers"), with scope limited to "the supplied store products." However, it does not distinguish the tool from close siblings such as compare_products, compare_prices, or analyze_offers, so an agent cannot tell which comparison tool is appropriate from the description alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no naming of alternatives, despite five sibling tools that also perform comparisons or offer analysis. The phrase "across the supplied store products" hints at scope but gives no condition for selecting this tool over its near-duplicates.

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

Deploy Server