Mode VC Startup Distribution Moat & Valuation Benchmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that by enumerating what the response contains (data series, takeaway, notes, primary sources) and confirming it is a per-chart lookup, though it omits behavior on an unresolved slug/title.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identifier and the returned payload are stated up front without 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, which is what an agent needs for this simple one-parameter lookup. Only error/ambiguity behavior for non-matching or title-based identifiers is left unstated.

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% with example slugs, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description's 'slug or title' phrasing adds a hint about accepted identifiers but subtly conflicts with the schema, which defines only a required 'slug' string.

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?

States a specific verb (Retrieves) plus the exact resource contents (empirical data series, takeaway, notes, primary sources) scoped to a Mode VC chart identified by slug/title. It is clearly distinguishable from get_venture_chart_of_the_day and search_charts by content, though it does not name those alternatives.

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?

Usage is only implied: the tool fetches full detail for a chart you must already be able to identify, which suggests it follows a search/discovery step (search_charts). No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and determinism are covered. The description adds the output shape (1-5 tier plus an AI parity vulnerability rating) and analytical factors, but says nothing about whether the scoring is a deterministic function of the inputs, whether it needs a live data source, or how to interpret borderline tiers.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the output (score range) and followed by the analytical inputs. No filler, though the framework citation is the only element that occupies space without adding invocation guidance.

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 no output schema, the description must carry return-value context, and it does partially (defensibility score 1-5, AI parity vulnerability). It omits the tier-to-meaning mapping and any statement of how the result should be used in a venture evaluation, leaving a gap for a scoring tool whose outputs are interpretive.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description alludes to two inputs ('customer acquisition channels' and 'network effects / workflow lock-in'), but adds no format detail, scoring weights, or examples beyond what the schema already documents, including the enumerated business_model values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Calculates the defensibility score (1 to 5) and AI parity vulnerability for a startup.' It also names the analytical basis (Mode VC's Distribution Moat Framework), which clearly separates it from the retrieval siblings (search_investors, get_chart_data). It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the nearest sibling, get_mode_vc_thesis_and_criteria.

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 names no when-to-use condition, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent cannot tell from this text whether the tool is meant to be called before, after, or instead of get_mode_vc_thesis_and_criteria, or whether inputs must be gathered elsewhere first.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds meaningful content context by naming what the payload contains (ticket range, Bay Area mandate, criteria, routing), but says nothing about freshness of the thesis data or response shape.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with an enumerable payload and zero filler; every clause adds information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so at a summary level. It could note whether the returned thesis is cached/static or how comprehensive the criteria detail is, but nothing essential to calling it is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to carry; the schema is trivially complete. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('Mode VC's investment parameters') and even enumerates the payload: ticket sizes, geography mandate, evaluation framework, pitch routing. An agent can tell this is a static fund-profile lookup. It stops short of naming which sibling it is not (e.g., get_investor_details), so it does not fully earn a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_investor_details for individual partners. The phrase 'direct pitch routing' hints at an outcome but is not framed as a usage condition.

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