demand.healthiwant.fyi demand-side protocol v1.0 §8.2: liveness and readiness check. Returns server info, protocol version, and active supply source list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by detailing what is returned: server info, protocol version, active supply source list. No contradictions, and additional context about the specific protocol section is provided.
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?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the most important information (liveness and readiness check) and includes specific details about what it returns. No wasted words.
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?
For a simple health check with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It clearly states the purpose and return contents, which is sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.
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?
There are no parameters (0 params, 100% coverage). The description does not need to add parameter details, so a baseline of 4 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 it is a 'liveness and readiness check' and specifies it returns 'server info, protocol version, and active supply source list'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'demand.capabilities' or 'demand.list_verticals'.
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?
The description implies usage for checking server health and readiness, but does not explicitly state when to use or not use it. Context signals (0 params, read-only) align with a health check, making it clear enough.
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.