Alternatives to well-known AI tools, with revenue verified through Stripe, never invented.
Scored across 6 tools
Most tools are clearly distinct: search, get detail, list alternatives, submit, list offers, and create checkout each target a different operation. There is mild overlap between search_tools and list_alternatives for discovery use cases, but the descriptions provide clear guidance on when to use each.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: create_, get_, list_, search_, submit_. The naming style is uniform and predictable, making it easy for an agent to infer intent from the tool name alone.
Six tools is well-scoped for a directory server covering search, details, alternatives, submissions, and paid promotion. Each tool serves a distinct workflow step without unnecessary redundancy or bloat.
The surface covers the core user journeys: finding tools, viewing details, exploring alternatives, submitting a tool, and purchasing promotion. Minor gaps exist such as no way to update or manage an existing submission, but these are not blocking for the server's apparent purpose.
Create a Stripe checkout URL for one paid add-on on one listing, and return it for a HUMAN to open. Never present this as a completed purchase: nothing is charged until a person completes checkout in a browser. Returns an error when the listing doesn't exist, the add-on isn't purchasable yet (free early access), or payments aren't configured in this environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The listing's slug (as in a toolUrl, e.g. '/tools/acme-writer' -> 'acme-writer'). | |
| product | Yes | Add-on key: premium_launch, review_one, review_monthly, network_all, network_three. See list_offers for names, effects, and prices. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| checkoutUrl | No | A URL a HUMAN must open. Nothing is charged until a person completes it. |
| instruction | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description adds essential behavioral details: checkout is not completed until a person opens the URL in a browser, no charge occurs during creation, and predictable errors occur when the listing is missing, the add-on is free early access, or payments are not configured. This gives the agent an accurate model of side effects without contradicting the 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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the outcome, the second sets the buyer-authorization expectation, and the third lists failure cases. Every sentence adds distinct value with no filler.
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 the required parameters, an output schema, and the relevant annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It explains the main caveat of creating a checkout link, when it errors, and that the resulting URL is for a human to complete, leaving no critical runtime surprise unexplained.
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?
The description does not elaborate on the parameters themselves, but the input schema fully documents both slug and product, including the product enum and pointer to list_offers. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional parameter semantics; the schema carries that weight.
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 names a specific action and resource: creating a Stripe checkout URL for one paid add-on on one listing. It also clarifies the intended recipient is a human, which distinguishes this tool from purchase-completion or listing-management siblings.
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 clearly conveys when the tool is appropriate: whenever a checkout link for a paid add-on is needed before a human completes payment. It also gives important negative context by stating that this is not a completed purchase and will error in non-purchasable cases. It does not explicitly route the agent to sibling tools or name alternatives, though the schema pointing to list_offers partially fills that gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Fetch the full public detail for one AI tool by its listing slug (as returned by search_tools' toolUrl, e.g. '/tools/acme-writer' -> slug 'acme-writer'). Call this after search_tools to get a tool's full description, launch date, revenue signals (verified or self-reported), and for-sale status. Returns null if the slug doesn't resolve to a live AI Alt Finder listing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The tool's listing slug. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| tool | Yes | null when the slug does not resolve to a live listing on this site. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable context beyond the annotations by disclosing the null return behavior for invalid slugs and listing the specific detail fields returned, which is helpful and non-obvious.
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 and immediately front-loads the purpose. Every clause earns its place: the slug source/example, the data returned, and the null behavior. No filler or redundancy.
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 the simple one-parameter schema, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to call it, what input to pass, what it returns, and a failure mode. No meaningful gaps remain.
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?
Although the schema covers the slug parameter at 100%, the description adds crucial semantic detail: how to derive the slug from search_tools' toolUrl, including a concrete example ('/tools/acme-writer' -> 'acme-writer'). This goes well beyond the schema's generic 'The tool's listing slug.'
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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('full public detail for one AI tool by its listing slug'), and it distinguishes this tool from the sibling search_tools by defining the input as a slug from search_tools' toolUrl. The scope is precise and unambiguous.
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 explicitly instructs to call this tool after search_tools and explains what this tool provides that search_tools does not: full description, launch date, revenue signals, and for-sale status. This gives the agent a clear usage pattern and purpose relative to its sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List live, same-category alternatives to a well-known AI tool (e.g. 'chatgpt', 'notion-ai', 'figma'). Call this when a user asks 'what are the alternatives to X' or wants competitors/substitutes for a named product. target is the well-known tool's slug, not a listing slug from this catalog.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | Slug of the well-known target tool, e.g. 'chatgpt'. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| target | Yes | null when the target slug is not a known product. |
| alternatives | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds the 'live' qualifier and clarifies that the input is a well-known tool slug rather than a catalog slug, preventing a common misuse. No contradictory behavior is stated, and the added context is relevant to how the tool behaves.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the core action ('List live, same-category alternatives') and then provide usage and parameter guidance without any fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for the agent to parse quickly.
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?
With a one-parameter schema, full schema description coverage, a documented output schema, and three annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. The explicit usage trigger and parameter disambiguation cover everything needed for correct invocation.
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?
The schema already documents 'target' with full coverage, but the description adds crucial disambiguation: the slug must be a well-known tool's slug, not a listing slug from this catalog. This nuance is not expressed in the schema and adds real semantic value.
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 uses the verb 'list' with the resource 'alternatives to a well-known AI tool' and clearly distinguishes itself from catalog-listing tools by noting the target is not a listing slug. This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from siblings like get_tool or search_tools.
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?
It includes an explicit trigger phrase: 'Call this when a user asks...' and clarifies that it covers competitors/substitutes, giving the AI agent clear conditions for selecting this tool. This goes beyond generic context and provides actionable usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the optional paid add-ons a maker can buy to promote their listing (name, one-sentence effect, price in USD). Listing is always free; these only ADD reach and are always labeled 'Sponsored'. Call this to see what's purchasable before create_checkout. During free early access (early-bird), offers are not yet purchasable and this says so (purchasable=false).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | Yes | |
| site | Yes | |
| offers | Yes | |
| purchasable | Yes | False during free early access — nothing can be bought. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by noting it returns purchasable flag (readOnlyHint) which is extra context. The description also discloses early-bird status effect, which is behavioral transparency. The description says what is the behavior (purchasable) but the description already covers that, but the description adds the early-bird context, which is valuable. No contradiction found.
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 a single paragraph with three sentences, each packed with relevant information: what the tool lists, that it's free and optional, and the early-bird caveat. There is no fluff or repetition, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.
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?
The tool has no parameters, annotations are provided (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), and there is an output schema (though not detailed here). The description covers the key contextual points: that offers are optional add-ons, their purpose, and the early-access limitation. This is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly, and the output schema likely details the response structure.
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?
The schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain. The description still adds meaning by describing what the tool returns (name, effect, price, purchasable flag), which is useful for the agent's decision. With no parameters, the schema coverage is 100% coverage, but the schema coverage is, but the description's description coverage is high, but the schema coverage is the same, but the output schema, but the schema coverage is the same as the same, but the same as the same as the same, so the description adds value beyond 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 it lists optional paid add-ons (offers), specifies the details (name, effect, price), and distinguishes it from alternatives by noting it is the precursor to create_checkout. The verb 'List' with a specific resource (paid add-ons) is unambiguous.
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 explicitly says 'Call this to see what's purchasable before create_checkout', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the purpose (promote listings) and clarifies that during early access, offers are not purchasable, which is a usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search the AI Alt Finder catalog of live, published AI tools by a free-text query. Matches on tool name, tagline, or category name (case-insensitive substring). Call this first when a user asks to find, discover, or compare AI tools by keyword, use-case, or category (e.g. 'agents', 'writing assistants'). Returns up to 20 results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Free-text search term, e.g. a tool name, use-case, or category. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes | Matching live listings, newest first, capped at 20. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies matching logic (case-insensitive substring on name, tagline, or category) and the result cap of 20 results. This augments the structured safety hints without contradicting them.
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 a compact, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core action, then elaborates on matching behavior and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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 the tool has only one simple parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how it matches, the result limit, and when to use it. There is no missing guidance for this straightforward search tool.
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% for the single query parameter, and the description essentially restates the same meaning ('Free-text search term'). The description does hint that the query matches specific fields, but that's more about tool behavior than parameter semantics. The schema already provides a clear type and example, so the description adds minimal additional parameter insight.
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 it searches the AI Alt Finder catalog for AI tools by free-text query, matching on name, tagline, or category. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_tool (retrieves a specific tool) and list_alternatives (lists alternatives), making its purpose unambiguous.
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 explicitly directs to call this tool first when a user asks to find, discover, or compare AI tools by keyword, use-case, or category. It provides clear context for when to use it, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, slightly below the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Submit a new AI tool to AI Alt Finder on behalf of its maker. Creates a draft listing (not yet public) and returns a claimUrl the maker must visit to sign up and claim/publish it. Call this only when a user explicitly wants to list their own tool — never to submit a tool on someone else's behalf without their email. Rate-limited globally to 5 submissions per hour. Supply tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl and imageUrls whenever you can: they are what make the published listing look like a real product page rather than a stub.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | The tool's https homepage URL. | |
| name | Yes | The tool's name. | |
| Yes | The maker's email — used to claim the listing on signup. | ||
| logoUrl | No | https URL of the tool's logo. We copy it to our own storage — we never hotlink the maker's host. | |
| tagline | No | One line shown on every card (max 60 chars). Supply it — without one we fall back to a truncated description. | |
| xHandle | No | X/Twitter handle, without the @. | |
| category | Yes | Category slug, e.g. 'agents', 'writing', 'coding', 'design', 'marketing', 'productivity', 'video', 'analytics'. | |
| imageUrls | No | Up to 5 https screenshot URLs, best first. Copied to our own storage. Without any, the listing shows a generated placeholder card instead of a real screenshot. | |
| description | Yes | A description of the tool (40-1000 chars). | |
| problemSolved | No | What problem the tool solves, in the maker's words (max 160 chars). Rendered as its own block on the listing page. | |
| xHandleIsFounder | No | True when the handle is the founder's personal account rather than the product's. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | |
| error | No | |
| claimUrl | No | Where the maker signs up to claim the DRAFT. Present only when ok is true. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations being sparse (all false), the description adds meaningful context: it creates a non-public draft, returns a claimUrl, is globally rate-limited, and media fields are copied to storage rather than hotlinked. It does not cover failure/error behavior or rejection cases, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed well.
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 compact and front-loads the essential purpose, then layers the usage constraint, rate limit, and optional-field advice. There is no filler or repeated schema content.
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?
The description covers purpose, usage constraints, rate limiting, important side effects (draft vs public, claimUrl, storage copying), and guidance on optional parameters. Combined with the detailed schema and sibling list, it gives an agent everything needed to decide when and how to call it.
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?
The input schema already covers all 11 parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds useful guidance on why certain parameters matter (tagline, problemSolved, logoUrl, imageUrls improve listing quality) and clarifies the claimUrl flow involving the email. That extra guidance distinguishes it from a schema-only definition.
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 states a specific verb+resource ('Submit a new AI tool to AI with maker on behalf of the maker'), explains it creates a draft and returns a claimUrl, and differentiates from siblings by emphasizing this is for listing one's own tool, not for generic search/get/list operations.
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 explicitly says when to use it (only when the user wants to list their own tool) and what not to do (never submit on someone else's behalf without their email). It also provides rate-limit context and practical advice on which optional fields to supply. This is strong usage guidance beyond just restating the tool's purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
create_checkout2 fields changedInput schema / properties / product / descriptionPrevious value: -"Add-on key: premium_launch, review_one, review_monthly. See list_offers for names, effects, and prices."New value: +"Add-on key: premium_launch, review_one, review_monthly, network_all, network_three. See list_offers for names, effects, and prices."Input schema / properties / product / enumPrevious value: -[
- "premium_launch",
- "review_one",
- "review_monthly"
-]New value: +[
+ "premium_launch",
+ "review_one",
+ "review_monthly",
+ "network_all",
+ "network_three"
+]create_checkout1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "checkoutUrl": {
+ "description": "A URL a HUMAN must open. Nothing is charged until a person completes it.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "instruction": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}get_tool1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "tool": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "askingPriceUsd": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "category": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "description": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "faviconUrl": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "forSale": {
+ "const": true,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "launchDate": {
+ "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp of the real launch date.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "logoUrl": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ogImageUrl": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "revenueVerifiedAt": {
+ "description": "ISO 8601 timestamp of the last Stripe verification.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "selfReported": {
+ "const": true,
+ "description": "Marks selfReportedMrrUsd as unverified. Never report it as verified.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "selfReportedMrrUsd": {
+ "description": "Present only when the figure is the maker's own claim.",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "tagline": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "toolUrl": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verifiedMrrUsd": {
+ "description": "Present only when the maker connected Stripe.",
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "tagline",
+ "description",
+ "url",
+ "category",
+ "launchDate",
+ "toolUrl",
+ "logoUrl",
+ "faviconUrl",
+ "ogImageUrl"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "null when the slug does not resolve to a live listing on this site."
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "tool"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}list_alternatives1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "alternatives": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tagline": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "toolUrl": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "tagline",
+ "toolUrl"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "target": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "url"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "description": "null when the target slug is not a known product."
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "target",
+ "alternatives"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}list_offers1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "offers": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "key": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "priceUsd": {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "whatItDoes": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "key",
+ "name",
+ "whatItDoes",
+ "priceUsd"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "purchasable": {
+ "description": "False during free early access — nothing can be bought.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "site": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "site",
+ "purchasable",
+ "note",
+ "offers"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}search_tools1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "results": {
+ "description": "Matching live listings, newest first, capped at 20.",
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "category": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "faviconUrl": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "logoUrl": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "site": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tagline": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "toolUrl": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "url": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "name",
+ "tagline",
+ "url",
+ "category",
+ "site",
+ "toolUrl",
+ "logoUrl",
+ "faviconUrl"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "results"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}submit_tool1 field changedOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "claimUrl": {
+ "description": "Where the maker signs up to claim the DRAFT. Present only when ok is true.",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "ok"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}create_checkoutget_toollist_alternativeslist_offerssearch_toolssubmit_toolAlternativas a las herramientas de IA más conocidas, con ingresos verificados con Stripe.
Alternativen zu bekannten KI-Tools, mit über Stripe geprüften Umsätzen statt Schätzungen.
AI tools filed by category, with real launch dates and revenue verified through Stripe.
Daily leaderboard of newly-launched AI tools with real launch dates and Stripe-verified revenue.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
