Get the structured Blast Radius diligence checklist: the key anti-patterns and durable-startup characteristics used to assess AI-first companies against the Frontier Line, each with a pitch question for founder conversations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the return content but does not disclose whether the checklist is static, dynamic, or any side effects (e.g., no mutation, no auth requirements).
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 with 28 words, front-loads verb and resource, no fluff. Every word adds value.
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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains the checklist's purpose and content. Could be more explicit about the return format (e.g., list of objects), but sufficient.
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 (schema coverage 100%), so per guidelines baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info since none exist, which 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 tool gets a structured diligence checklist and specifies its content (anti-patterns, characteristics, pitch question), which distinguishes it from siblings like assess_against_frontier_line or get_thesis.
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 obtaining the checklist but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., ask_blast_radius, get_thesis) or provide exclusions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: Q&A, business assessment, checklist, market quote, latest update, thesis, and subscription. No overlap.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern (ask_, assess_, get_, subscribe), with clear and predictable naming.
7 tools is well-scoped for the domain—enough to cover core functionality without bloat.
Covers key operations: querying, assessment, reference data, and subscription. Minor missing features like unsubscribing, but overall robust.