Generate a public, read-only share link to an idea validation results so you can send them to someone without giving account access. Use it to share outcomes with investors or teammates. Not read-only; it creates a shareable link record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ideaId | Yes | The idea ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | The tool result rendered as human and AI readable text or markdown. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description explicitly states it is not read-only and creates a shareable link record, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=false). However, the conflicting statements 'read-only' vs 'Not read-only' reduce clarity on what the link actually permits, and no details are given about link expiration or access revocation.
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 concise with two actionable sentences plus one clarification. The key information is front-loaded. The contradictory note is brief but could be restructured to avoid confusion.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which potentially describes the return value) and one simple parameter, the description covers the essential use case. However, the conflicting statements about read-only behavior create ambiguity about what permissions the link grants, and there is no guidance on whether the link is permanent or time-limited.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already documents the single required parameter (ideaId). The description does not elaborate on parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 generates a public, read-only share link for idea validation results, with an explicit use case (sharing with investors or teammates). However, it initially claims the link is read-only then contradicts itself with 'Not read-only; it creates a shareable link record,' which muddles the core purpose.
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 implies usage for sharing results externally and mentions the audience (investors/teammates), but does not specify when to use this versus alternative sharing methods (e.g., grant_idea_access) or exclude inappropriate contexts like internal team sharing.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
