TrendIdea

get_competitive_density

Read-only

Measure how crowded a niche or sector is with a competitive density score built from idea volume, VC score spread and claim rates. Use it to judge whether a space is saturated or still open before committing to an idea. Read-only and free; filter by category to focus one idea type.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Max niches to return
`category`	No	Filter by idea type (SAAS, MARKETPLACE, PLATFORM, etc.)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only and free.' It adds value by disclosing the score composition (idea volume, VC score spread, claim rates) and the optional category filter. This goes beyond the annotation's safety profile to explain the tool's underlying behavior.

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?

The description is two sentences with the core function front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the metric definition, the use case, and the free/read-only note. No filler or repetition.

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?

With an output schema available, the description appropriately focuses on purpose and usage. It covers the key behavioral traits (read-only, free, category filter) and gives enough context to interpret the score. For a tool with two optional parameters and a clear output schema, this is complete.

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% for both parameters, with the schema already describing 'limit' as 'Max niches to return' and 'category' as 'Filter by idea type.' The description's mention of 'filter by category to focus one idea type' closely mirrors the schema, adding little new semantic meaning beyond what structured data already provides.

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 tool measures competitive density using a specific score built from idea volume, VC score spread, and claim rates. It distinguishes itself from other analysis tools by focusing on saturation and openness of a niche, with an explicit use case before committing to an idea.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool ('before committing to an idea') and how to focus it ('filter by category'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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?