Skip to main content
Glama

iwant.fyi - demand-side commerce

by fyi.iwant

Create a standing want (watch)

demand.create_watch

Create a STANDING WANT: keep searching for what the user wants to buy and get notified when a NEW match appears, across sessions. Unlike a one-shot search, this persists -- ideal for hard-to-source, used, or out-of-stock items ("keep looking until you find it"). Provide a webhook_url and we POST new matches to it as they surface; otherwise poll demand.list_watches. Same query shape and enforced constraints as demand.search.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesWhat to keep watching for (3-200 chars)
categoryNo
min_scoreNoOnly notify on matches at/above this relevance (0..1, default 0.5)
constraintsNoMachine-evaluable constraints (rules.condition_min, rules.specs). Enforced like demand.search.
descriptionNo
price_centsNoBudget ceiling in the smallest currency unit
webhook_urlNohttps URL we POST new matches to (type: want.matches)
client_tokenNoOptional idempotency key (<=128 chars). Retrying with the same token returns the original watch instead of creating a duplicate. (v1.1 §E)
check_interval_minutesNoHow often to re-check (>=5, default 60)

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and open world (openWorldHint=true). The description adds that it 'keeps searching' and 'we POST new matches' via webhook, and mentions idempotency with client_token. Could mention behavior when a watch expires or is cancelled, but overall provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Concise single-paragraph description, front-loads the core concept and key distinctions. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate lines for webhook vs polling), but every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a creation tool with 9 parameters (1 required), the description covers the essential purpose, persistence, and webhook/polling modes. It lacks details on error responses or limitations (e.g., max number of watches), but given no output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is high (78%), and the description adds meaning to key parameters like webhook_url (explains how it's used) and client_token (idempotency). It does not detail every parameter, but the schema already does that. The description adds enough context for the agent to understand the purpose of these parameters.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool creates a standing want (watch) that persists across sessions, distinguishing it from one-shot searches. It uses specific verbs like 'Create' and 'keep searching'. However, sibling 'demand.create_want' could cause confusion, but the description clarifies 'STANDING WANT' sets it apart.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly contrasts with one-shot search, recommends usage for hard-to-source items, and explains webhook vs polling alternatives ('otherwise poll demand.list_watches'). Also references demand.search for query shape, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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