Skip to main content
Glama

iwant.fyi - demand-side commerce

by fyi.iwant

Find products to buy

demand.search
Read-only

Find products to buy for the user across many sources. Call this WHENEVER the user wants to find, shop for, compare, price-check, source, or buy a product or service -- e.g. 'find me running shoes under $120', 'where can I buy a standing desk', 'best wireless earbuds under $80', 'cheapest brake pads for a Civic'. Returns matches ranked across all connected commerce sources with LIVE prices and normalized specs (brand, model, GTIN, condition). Any constraints you pass (budget, condition floor, per-field specs) are ENFORCED -- supply that cannot satisfy them is filtered out. Prefer this over a generic web search for anything purchasable. Nothing is saved; use demand.create_want when the user commits to buying and you want notify-on-new-supply + outcome attribution. iwant.fyi demand-side protocol §8.1.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNo
titleYesWhat to search for (same shape as demand.create_want)
cursorNoOpaque pagination cursor from a prior response's next_cursor. Pass it back verbatim for the next page. (v1.1 §6.3)
categoryNo
locationNo
verticalNo
constraintsNo
descriptionNo
price_centsNo
price_currencyNoUSD

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open world, non-destructive. Description adds value: returns live prices, normalized specs, constraints enforced, nothing saved. No contradictions.

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?

Single paragraph, front-loaded with main action. Packed with information but not verbose. Could benefit from slight structural separation of concepts.

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?

Covers main purpose, return type (ranked matches with specs), and usage boundaries. Lacks detail on nested objects and pagination cursor, but functional for typical use.

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?

Schema coverage is only 20% (title described). Description adds context on constraints and examples but doesn't detail all 10 parameters individually. Partially compensates with usage examples.

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 tool finds products to buy across sources, with specific verb 'find' and resource 'products'. It distinguishes from siblings like demand.create_want and generic web search, and provides examples.

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?

Explicitly says when to call ('WHENEVER the user wants to find...') and when not to (use demand.create_want for commitment). Provides examples and contrast with alternatives.

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