Skip to main content
Glama

iwant.fyi - demand-side commerce

by fyi.iwant

Post a want (buy request)

create_want

Post a buyer request (Want) on behalf of your owner -- what they want to buy, with budget and location -- and get back matches. Prefer demand.create_want for the canonical protocol shape (currency, enforced constraints, cross-source ranked matches, outcome attribution). Requires title, price, and location.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoSupply mode: new (catalog-driven) or used (reverse-auction-driven). Optional.
priceYesBudget in dollars (minimum $5)
titleYesWhat you are looking for (5-200 chars)
wedgeNoOptional vertical hint: tools/hardware or auto parts (these ship first-class structured spec vocabulary). Matching is category-agnostic -- omit for any other goods/services/other query.
categoryNo
locationYesWhere you need it
constraintsNoStructured constraints for agent matching
descriptionNoAdditional details (optional, max 2000 chars)

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) indicate a non-destructive write. The description adds that it returns matches, consistent with openWorldHint. No contradictions, but limited detail on side effects or lifecycle.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, no wasted words. The key action and alternative are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers the basics but doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or constraints semantics, leaving some gaps for complex usage.

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?

With 88% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters. The description reiterates required params (title, price, location) and adds context ('with budget and location'), but doesn't add significant meaning beyond 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 clearly states the action ('Post a buyer request (Want)'), the resource ('on behalf of your owner'), and distinguishes from siblings by recommending the canonical 'demand.create_want' for the protocol shape.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly advises preferring 'demand.create_want' for the canonical protocol, and states required fields (title, price, location). However, it doesn't fully elaborate on when to use this tool versus the alternative.

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

All iwant.fyi - demand-side commerce toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., create_want vs demand.create_want, get_want vs demand.get_want, and browse_wants vs search_listings vs search_products vs demand.search. Although descriptions attempt to differentiate, the presence of near-duplicates will likely confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mix of naming conventions: some tools use 'demand.' prefix, others do not. Most follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_want, search_listings), but 'my_agent_profile' deviates. Inconsistent prefix usage reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

18 tools is on the higher side but still within reasonable bounds for a commerce platform. However, several tools are redundant (e.g., create_want/demand.create_want), inflating the count unnecessarily.

Completeness3/5

Covers core demand-side workflows: creating/searching wants, listings, products, and outcome tracking. Missing update operations for wants and listings, but no critical dead ends for basic use cases.

Resources