APIClaw

openapi_v2_fashion_product_search

Search fashion products by text query

Search fashion products by natural-language text query.

Searches across 200M+ fashion products from major retailers. Supports brand filtering, price range, and retailer domain allowlists/denylists. Results include product title, brand, price, image, and retailer link.

Responses:

200: Successful Response (Success Response) Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "success": true,
  "meta": {
    "requestId": "Requestid",
    "timestamp": "Timestamp"
  }
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "success": {
      "type": "boolean",
      "title": "Success",
      "description": "Whether the request was successful",
      "default": true
    },
    "data": {
      "description": "Response data payload"
    },
    "error": {
      "description": "Error details if request failed"
    },
    "meta": {
      "description": "Metadata for API responses.\n\nCredit fields follow the ADR-0003 parallel-fields strategy (Option 3):\n- `credits_remaining` / `credits_consumed` (int): legacy fields, rounded\n  to whole credits, kept for zero-breaking-change to existing SDK clients.\n- `credits_remaining_exact` / `credits_consumed_exact` (float): new\n  precision-aware fields for clients that opt in to decimal credits.\n\nSee ADR-0003 decision 5 and the \u00a78 deprecation timeline.\n\nTODO(2026-11, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +6mo): mark `credits_remaining` /\n`credits_consumed` as `deprecated=True` in their Field() definitions\nand announce in customer changelog.\nTODO(2027-05, ADR-0003 \u00a78 +12mo): remove the legacy int fields via a\nmajor-version bump of the OpenAPI surface.",
      "properties": {
        "requestId": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Requestid",
          "description": "Unique request identifier"
        },
        "timestamp": {
          "type": "string",
          "title": "Timestamp",
          "description": "Response timestamp in ISO 8601 format"
        },
        "total": {
          "title": "Total",
          "description": "Total number of records"
        },
        "page": {
          "title": "Page",
          "description": "Current page number"
        },
        "pageSize": {
          "title": "Pagesize",
          "description": "Number of records per page"
        },
        "totalPages": {
          "title": "Totalpages",
          "description": "Total number of pages"
        },
        "creditsRemaining": {
          "title": "Creditsremaining",
          "description": "Remaining API credits (rounded to whole credits; see creditsRemainingExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsConsumed": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumed",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request (rounded; see creditsConsumedExact for precise value)"
        },
        "creditsRemainingExact": {
          "title": "Creditsremainingexact",
          "description": "Remaining API credits, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "creditsConsumedExact": {
          "title": "Creditsconsumedexact",
          "description": "Credits consumed by this request, precise to 1 decimal place"
        },
        "tokensUsage": {
          "description": "Provider token-usage block \u2014 populated on terminal video polls only, null on every non-video endpoint. See TokensUsage for its fields."
        }
      },
      "type": "object",
      "required": [
        "requestId",
        "timestamp"
      ],
      "title": "ResponseMeta"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "required": [
    "meta"
  ],
  "title": "OpenApiResponse[FashionProductSearchResult]",
  "examples": []
}

422: Validation Error Content-Type: application/json

Example Response:

{
  "detail": [
    {
      "loc": [],
      "msg": "Message",
      "type": "Error Type",
      "ctx": {}
    }
  ]
}

Output Schema:

{
  "properties": {
    "detail": {
      "items": {
        "properties": {
          "loc": {
            "items": {},
            "type": "array",
            "title": "Location"
          },
          "msg": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Message"
          },
          "type": {
            "type": "string",
            "title": "Error Type"
          },
          "input": {
            "title": "Input"
          },
          "ctx": {
            "type": "object",
            "title": "Context"
          }
        },
        "type": "object",
        "required": [
          "loc",
          "msg",
          "type"
        ],
        "title": "ValidationError"
      },
      "type": "array",
      "title": "Detail"
    }
  },
  "type": "object",
  "title": "HTTPValidationError"
}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`topK`	No	Maximum number of results to return (1-50, default 10).
`brand`	No	Filter by brand name. Example: 'Gucci'.
`query`	Yes	Natural-language fashion search query. Examples: 'women brown suede tote under 300', 'black leather ankle boots', 'men slim fit navy blazer'.
`sites`	No	Retailer domain allowlist. Example: ['farfetch.com', 'nordstrom.com'].
`priceMax`	No	Maximum price in USD. Example: 300.00.
`priceMin`	No	Minimum price in USD. Example: 50.00.
`excludeSites`	No	Retailer domain denylist. Example: ['poshmark.com'].

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search covers 200M+ fashion products and that results include title, brand, price, image, and retailer link. It does not mention rate limits, auth requirements, pagination behavior, or a read-only guarantee, but the nature of a search tool implies read-only. This is moderate transparency, not comprehensive.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first two sentences are concise and front-loaded with the essential purpose. However, the description is flooded with a large 'Responses' section containing example JSON and an output schema, including verbose metadata about credit fields, ADR-0003, and TODOs unrelated to the search functionality. This boilerplate adds significant noise and does not earn its place for an agent selecting the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the core aspects: what the tool does, scale, filters, and result fields. It omits details like result ordering, no-result behavior, and page-size semantics, though the topK parameter is defined in the schema. The huge response schema provides generic metadata but not a complete data structure for search results, so the description is moderately complete for a search tool with well-documented parameters.

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?

The schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (query, brand, priceMin/Max, sites/excludeSites, topK). The description adds a high-level summary of filtering capabilities ('brand filtering, price range, and retailer domain allowlists/denylists') that maps to the parameters but does not introduce any new meaning beyond the existing schema examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'Search fashion products by text query' and elaborates as 'natural-language text query' and 'Searches across 200M+ fashion products from major retailers.' This clearly specifies the verb (search), resource (fashion products), and scope (text-based, 200M+ products). It distinguishes from sibling image/similarity search tools by emphasizing the text-query nature and fashion focus.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear usage context: it supports brand filtering, price range, and retailer domain allowlists/denylists, and returns product title, brand, price, image, and retailer link. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like openapi_v2_products_search or openapi_v2_fashion_image_search, so no exclusion or alternative guidance is given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All APIClaw tools Inspect

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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries, most notably openapi_v2_competitor_product_keywords and openapi_v2_product_traffic_terms, which have identical descriptions. The deprecated openapi_v2_realtime_product duplicates openapi_v3_realtime_product, and openapi_v2_image_embedding overlaps heavily with openapi_v2_fashion_image_embedding.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: a few tools follow a clean verb_noun pattern (create_video_asset, list_video_assets, poll_video_task), while the vast majority are prefixed with openapi_v2_/openapi_v3_ followed by nouns or mixed verbs. The route-style prefix is not a meaningful verb and creates an arbitrary split across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

49 tools is far beyond the well-scoped range and spans multiple unrelated domains (Amazon product data, TikTok commerce, fashion vision, web scraping, video generation, billing). The server appears to be an entire REST API surface exposed wholesale rather than a curated set of capabilities.

Completeness3/5

Each domain is individually fairly complete (Amazon search/reviews/keywords/VoC, TikTok search, web tools, video generation), but there are notable gaps: video assets lack update/delete, video tasks lack cancel/list, and there is no singular 'get daily product by ASIN' alongside the realtime variants. The broad scope makes it hard to verify full lifecycle coverage across all domains.

Resources

Need Help?