Compare observed offers from stores and sellers to find a qualifying product at the minimum observed price, using filters for availability, warranty, and seller rating.
Find the lowest comparable observed offer under explicit filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_ids | Yes | ||
| seller_ids | No | ||
| product_ids | Yes | ||
| require_warranty | No | ||
| require_available | No | ||
| minimum_seller_rating | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no read-only confirmation, no note on data recency or coverage ('observed' hints at stored data but is unexplained), and no indication of what happens when filters exclude all offers. It is at least not misleading, but the disclosure is thin for a six-parameter lookup tool.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the tool's core behavior with no filler. It is appropriately sized; the brevity is a virtue, though it comes at the cost of detail rather than being densely informative.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and six undocumented parameters, there are significant gaps: result ranking/tie-breaking is unexplained and 'lowest comparable' is undefined. For a search/selection tool competing against several similar siblings, the definition is under-specified.
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% across six parameters, and the description doesn't compensate — 'explicit filters' never explains require_warranty, require_available, minimum_seller_rating, or how product_ids/store_ids/seller_ids interact. An agent must infer the semantics of every filter from bare parameter names.
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 verb (find) and a target (lowest comparable observed offer), which conveys the general intent. However, the phrase 'comparable observed offer' is jargon that doesn't clarify what makes offers 'comparable' or 'observed', and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like find_best_value, compare_prices, or compare_offers.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite a sibling cluster that includes find_best_value, compare_prices, and compare_offers — an agent has no basis for choosing among them. 'Under explicit filters' gestures at usage but does not tell the agent when this tool is the right pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.