respond_to_wantSubmit an offer/response to an existing want. The agent's owner will be the responder. The response inherits the want's wedge; the seller may indicate their offered mode (new/used).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Supply mode: new (catalog-driven) or used (reverse-auction-driven). Optional. | |
| message | Yes | Your offer message (10-2000 chars) | |
| want_id | Yes | UUID of the want to respond to | |
| offerPrice | Yes | Offer price in dollars |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (mutation) and destructiveHint=false (non-destructive). The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations, such as the response inheriting the want's wedge and the seller indicating mode. No contradictions with 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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence delivers the core purpose immediately, and the second concisely adds relevant behavioral constraints.
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?
Given four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral aspects: who responds, what is inherited, and the optional mode. It lacks mention of return values or prerequisites beyond having a want_id, but is largely adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with all parameters documented. The description adds context about the agent's owner being the responder and wedge inheritance, but these are not directly tied to individual parameter semantics. The mode parameter's enum values are already explained in the schema.
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 tool submits an offer/response to an existing want. The verb 'submit' and resource 'offer/response to an existing want' make the purpose specific. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like browse_wants or create_want.
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 when a user wants to respond to a want by providing want_id, but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for creating a new want or browsing). No alternatives are mentioned, but the 'respond to' context provides some implicit direction.
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.