TrendIdea

get_demand_proof

Read-only

Return demand validation evidence for an idea: search trends, social signals, competitor funding and market sizing data gathered from external sources. Use it to prove real demand exists before you build. Read-only and free; pass an ideaId you own.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ideaId`	Yes	The idea ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds 'Read-only and free', which aligns with the hint, and mentions data sourced from external sources. But it does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., response format, pagination, or latency). Given the annotations carry the main burden, the description adds moderate context.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines the tool's output, the second gives usage and constraints. Everything is front-loaded, no extraneous words. Perfectly concise.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, output schema exists). The description covers purpose, prerequisite (ownership), and safety (read-only, free). No missing information for correct invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema describes ideaId as 'The idea ID' with 100% coverage. The description adds the constraint 'pass an ideaId you own', which is meaningful context beyond the schema. This is valuable for correct invocation.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool returns demand validation evidence including search trends, social signals, competitor funding, and market sizing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_market_trends, get_social_proof, or get_competitive_density, which might overlap in content.

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 usage context: 'Use it to prove real demand exists before you build' and specifies prerequisites: 'pass an ideaId you own'. It does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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?