Return the full validation timeline for an idea: every event in chronological order, including agent runs, simulations and score changes. Use it to audit exactly what happened to an idea and when. Read-only and free; pass an ideaId you own.
| 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 states it is 'read-only and free', which adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation (true) and openWorldHint (false). It reinforces the safety profile and adds cost information (free) not present in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.
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 three sentences long, each adding unique value: first explains what the tool does and its output, second states its use case (audit), third provides safety and ownership guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose.
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 (so description need not explain return values), only one required parameter, no enums, and annotations already cover read-only and open-world hints, the description is complete. It additionally provides ownership scope and cost/free status, which are not in the structured data.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter (ideaId) with a basic description 'The idea ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with complete coverage and a simple schema, the baseline of 3 is elevated to 4 because the description is clear enough that no extra parameter detail is needed.
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 returns the full validation timeline for an idea with all events in chronological order, including agent runs, simulations, and score changes. It explicitly distinguishes this from other tools by specifying the scope (full timeline, chronological, audit-focused) and names specific event types.
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 says when to use it ('audit exactly what happened to an idea and when') and provides a constraint on usage ('pass an ideaId you own'). While it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, the context makes it clear this is the go-to tool for chronological audit of an idea's events, distinguishing it from other get_* tools.
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.
