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. Not for posts that ask to buy a service (use find_buying_intent) or for reviews of one product.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many tools to return (default 5)
`category`	Yes	The kind of tool, not a company or person. Example call: {"category": "monitoring"}. Other examples: "password manager", "ticketing"
`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

Name	Required	Description
`as_of`	Yes	ISO 8601 time the data was published by its source or fetched from it. A cached answer keeps the time of its fetch.
`tools`	Yes
`notice`	Yes
`reddit`	Yes
`source`	Yes	Who the data comes from, to cite and to check it against.
`status`	Yes
`window`	Yes
`message`	No
`category`	Yes
`posts_read`	Yes
`attribution`	Yes
`sources_used`	Yes
`sources_unavailable`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 23, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "category": "monitoring"
+  }
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / as_of / description

Added value: +"ISO 8601 time the data was published by its source or fetched from it. A cached answer keeps the time of its fetch."

addedOutput schema / properties / source

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Who the data comes from, to cite and to check it against.",
+  "properties": {
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "name",
+    "url"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "status",
-  "category",
-  "window",
-  "posts_read",
-  "sources_used",
-  "sources_unavailable",
-  "reddit",
-  "tools",
-  "attribution",
-  "as_of",
-  "notice"
-]New value: +[
+  "status",
+  "category",
+  "window",
+  "posts_read",
+  "sources_used",
+  "sources_unavailable",
+  "reddit",
+  "tools",
+  "attribution",
+  "as_of",
+  "notice",
+  "source"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedOct 11, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / category / description

Previous value: -"The kind of tool, such as \"monitoring\", \"password manager\" or \"ticketing\". Not a company and not a person"New value: +"The kind of tool, not a company or person. Example call: {\"category\": \"monitoring\"}. Other examples: \"password manager\", \"ticketing\""

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / note_from_openkrill

Removed 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"
-}

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

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description adds real behavioral context: sources searched (Hacker News and Stack Exchange, explicitly not Reddit), aggregate-counts-only privacy posture, per-item source link and date, and the caveat that a mention is not a survey or buying intent. It does not state result volume or cost/latency, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 usage trigger is front-loaded and every clause carries information, but the middle is a dense run-on that packs source coverage, privacy, and limitations into one sentence. Slightly long for a 3-param tool, though nothing is truly redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be spelled out, yet the description briefly previews the result contents, names the sources, and flags the two main interpretation risks (mentions are not surveys; not buying intent). An agent has everything needed to call and interpret it correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds value by contrasting lookback_days (30-365) with find_buyer_signals' 1-60 range and by clarifying that category is a kind of tool, not a company or person — cross-tool meaning the schema alone does not carry.

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 and resource: aggregates tool complaints by category, including what people consider and switching triggers, with a concrete example query. It is clearly distinguishable from find_buyer_signals, find_buying_intent and get_feedback_reply by naming the latter two as out of scope.

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 condition, gives a worked example of the user request it answers, and names exclusions with the alternative to use instead (find_buying_intent for purchase posts, and 'not for reviews of one product'). Nothing about when to select this tool is left to inference.

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.