TrendIdea

claim_idea

Claim a marketplace idea and add it exclusively to your portfolio. This spends credits based on the idea VC score tier (49-1499 credits) and can only be done once per idea; no subscription is required. Not read-only and not reversible; check get_credits_balance and the idea tier before calling.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ideaId`	Yes	The idea ID to claim
`visibility`	No	Set visibility after claiming

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	The tool result rendered as human and AI readable text or markdown.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond annotations. Describes side effects: spends credits based on VC score tier, exclusivity, non-reversibility, and lack of subscription requirement. The description explicitly states it is not read-only and not reversible, adding behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, all essential: purpose, key side effects, prerequisite check. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the presence of an output schema (so return values are covered) and comprehensive annotations, the description covers behavioral aspects, prerequisites, and consequences. It is complete for a high-stakes mutation tool with clear constraints.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add new information about the parameters (ideaId or visibility) beyond what the schema provides. However, it implies the idea tier determines cost, which is not in the schema, but this is a minor addition. No parameter-specific detail is added.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Claim' and resource 'marketplace idea', and specifies it adds exclusively to a portfolio. It distinguishes from siblings like create_idea or update_idea by highlighting exclusivity and credit cost.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says when to use: to claim an idea once per idea. Provides clear prerequisites: check get_credits_balance and idea tier. Distinguishes from alternatives implicitly by noting non-reversibility and credit spending, which is not present in read-only tools.

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

All TrendIdea tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct function or data aspect, from idea CRUD to simulations, content generation, and team management. Despite the large number, descriptions clearly differentiate purposes, e.g., 'get_idea_summary' vs. 'get_idea_agents' vs. 'get_idea_evolution'. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., 'create_idea', 'get_competitive_density', 'toggle_favorite'). No mixing of conventions like camelCase or abbreviations. The pattern is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

63 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. While the platform's broad scope (idea validation, B2B, team, simulations) justifies many, the sheer volume can overwhelm an agent. A more curated subset or grouping would improve coherence.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full startup idea lifecycle: creation, validation, retrieval of various analyses, updates, deletion, sharing, simulations, B2B lead generation, team collaboration, and market intelligence. No obvious gaps exist for the stated domain.

Resources

Need Help?