toolfound_get_alternativesList alternatives to a given product on toolfound — tools in the same primary category, ranked by community votes. Useful for 'alternatives to X' and comparison questions. Each result includes tagline, pricing model, votes, and a canonical listing URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug of the product to find alternatives for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about ranking and category, and states the output fields. However, it does not mention any potential limitations such as pagination, rate limits, authentication, or behavior when no alternatives exist. For a read tool, it provides moderate transparency but leaves 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 function, followed by use cases and output details. No wasted words — every sentence provides value.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, how results are ranked, and what data is returned. It is nearly complete, but could slightly improve by noting any constraints like pagination, but overall it is adequate.
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 100% description coverage with a clear explanation of the 'slug' parameter. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('alternatives to a given product on toolfound') and specifies the scope ('tools in the same primary category') and ranking logic ('by community votes'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like search_tools and get_product by focusing on 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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Useful for "alternatives to X" and comparison questions.' This gives clear context, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use the tool, which is why it does not receive a 5.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: verification dry-run vs actual verification, submission vs status vs calendar, search vs browse vs trending, etc. Even the two verification tools are cleanly separated by check (non-destructive) and verify (action).
All tools follow the pattern toolfound_<verb>_<object>, with consistent verbs like get_, list_, search_, submit_, verify_, check_, claim_. No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
12 tools is well-scoped for a launch platform server. It covers discovery, submission, verification, status tracking, and post-launch features without being bloated or thin.
The tool surface covers the full submission-verification-launch workflow plus discovery and post-launch actions. Missing explicit update/delete operations for submissions, though idempotent resubmission partially covers updates, so it's a minor gap rather than a fatal flaw.