Free weekly board of what people keep asking for across 40 startup, marketing, sales, dev, and ecommerce subreddits: recurring pains, missing tools, and paying-shaped demand with real thread links. Call with no arguments for the cross-community leaderboard, or pass a community for its full breakdown.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| community | No | Optional subreddit name (e.g. "startups" or "r/SaaS") for a per-community breakdown. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature implicitly (a 'board' of information), the weekly update cadence, and the inclusion of thread links. However, it doesn't mention potential errors, rate limits, or explicit side-effect safety, leaving some gaps.
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, front-loaded with the core value proposition and then clear invocation options. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns, how to invoke it, and the data scope. It could specify the output structure more, but it's sufficient for an agent to decide and call correctly.
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 describes the community parameter, but the description adds the critical no-argument behavior (cross-community leaderboard) and clarifies that passing a community yields its full breakdown. This goes beyond the schema's per-community description.
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 provides a weekly board of demand signals (recurring pains, missing tools, paying-shaped demand) across 40 subreddits, with real thread links. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing cross-community aggregation and optional per-community breakdown.
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 gives clear invocation guidance: call with no arguments for the cross-community leaderboard, or pass a community for its full breakdown. It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the use case is obvious and the context is sufficient.
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.
Several tools (competitor_complaints, demand_radar, reddit_demand_board, find_buyer_threads) all mine Reddit threads for demand, complaints, or buyer interest, with overlapping purposes that could easily confuse an agent. The boundaries are unclear, especially between demand_radar and reddit_demand_board, which both offer weekly demand overviews.
All names use snake_case and are readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-first (find_buyer_threads, get_demo_report, get_started) while others are noun-heavy phrases (competitor_complaints, reddit_demand_board, subreddit_rules). This inconsistency makes the set feel less predictable.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused Reddit market research server. Each tool serves a distinct function within the domain, and none feel redundant or excessive.
The tool set covers the core workflows: discovering demand, finding buyer threads, checking competitor complaints, and understanding community rules. Minor gaps include lack of direct keyword search or alerting, but agents can chain existing tools to achieve most goals.