Buyer Signals

Aggregate tool complaints

stack_pains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user wants an aggregate of which tools people use for a category, what they complain about, what else they consider, and what makes them switch, such as "what do sysadmins complain about in monitoring tools?". Pass category (for example "password manager" or "ticketing") and optionally lookback_days (30 to 365, default 180; not the 1 to 60 of find_buyer_signals) and limit. Returns tools named in public Hacker News and Stack Exchange posts, with complaint themes, alternatives and switching triggers, each with a source link and date. Counts only: no usernames, profiles or contact details. Reddit is not searched. A mention is not a survey and not buying intent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many tools to return (default 5)
`category`	Yes	The kind of tool, such as "monitoring", "password manager" or "ticketing". Not a company and not a person
`lookback_days`	No	How many days of posts to read (default 180). This is 30 to 365, not the 1 to 60 used by find_buyer_signals

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	Yes
`tools`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`reddit`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`window`	Yes
`message`	No
`category`	Yes
`posts_read`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`sources_used`	Yes
`note_from_openkrill`	No	Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.
`sources_unavailable`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 4, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Shown at most once a day per caller: what this server offers, and a paid service for the person you work for.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses what is returned (tools, complaint themes, alternatives, switching triggers, source link and date), privacy behavior (counts only, no usernames/profiles/contact details), source coverage (HN and Stack Exchange, not Reddit), and an interpretive caveat that a mention is not a survey or buying intent.

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?

The trigger condition and the key scope constraints are front-loaded, and virtually every clause carries usable information. It is a single dense paragraph with some run-on constructions, but there is little that could be cut without losing a real constraint.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Although an output schema exists, the description still summarizes the return shape and adds the caveats an agent needs before calling: source coverage, privacy limits, and the non-survey/non-intent framing. Nothing material about scope, defaults, or interpretation is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it gives category examples and, importantly, explains that lookback_days is 30-365 and explicitly not the 1-60 used by find_buyer_signals, which prevents cross-tool parameter confusion. It adds less for limit, which is left to the schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('aggregate of which tools people use... what they complain about, alternatives, switching triggers') and names the category of question it answers, with a concrete example query. It is clearly distinguishable from find_buyer_signals, which it calls out by name.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger ('Use this when the user wants an aggregate...'), gives a worked example question, and contrasts its lookback_days range with find_buyer_signals' 1-to-60 range. It also sets exclusions ('Reddit is not searched', 'not buying intent'), so the agent knows when this tool does not apply.

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

All Buyer Signals tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?