toolfound_get_trendingThe toolfound leaderboard: top products launched in the last day, week, or month, ranked by community votes. toolfound is a launch platform with a transparent queue — every product here launched publicly on an assigned date and is ownership-verified. Great for 'what launched recently' and 'trending tools' questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| period | Yes | Leaderboard window: day, week, or month. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the transparency burden. It adds useful context about community-vote ranking and ownership verification, but it omits return format, result limits, and pagination details, leaving transparency partial.
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?
Three sentences each add value: definition, platform context, and usage suggestion. There is no fluff, and it is appropriately concise 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?
The tool is simple with one enum parameter and no output schema. The description covers purpose, usage, and platform context, but because there is no output schema, it should explain return value characteristics, which it does not. Thus it is adequate but incomplete.
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 fully covers the only parameter 'period' with an enum of day/week/month and a description, and the tool description also references these windows. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no new parameter semantics, warranting a baseline 3.
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 identifies the tool as a leaderboard of top products launched within day/week/month windows, ranked by community votes. It is specific and unambiguous, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like search or calendar, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 recommends it for 'what launched recently' and 'trending tools' questions, giving clear context. It does not mention when to avoid it or name alternatives, so it falls short of 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.