demand.get_wantiwant.fyi demand-side protocol v1.0 §8.1: retrieve a Want by ID, including its current matches and constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| want_id | Yes | UUID of the want |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the response includes matches and constraints, providing behavioral context beyond the annotations.
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?
The description is short (16 words) and front-loaded with the core action. However, the protocol reference prefix adds noise and could be removed for better conciseness.
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 description adequately explains what the tool returns (matches and constraints). Given the tool's simplicity, single parameter, and existing annotations, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage and the parameter description is clear. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('retrieve') and the resource ('a Want by ID'), and specifies that it includes 'current matches and constraints'. This distinguishes it from siblings like browse_wants or demand.search.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus other similar tools. The description lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use criteria, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.