Return market signal analysis for an idea: trend momentum, timing analysis and market opportunity indicators. Use it to judge whether now is the right moment to pursue the idea. 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description doesn't need to re-state safety. The description adds value by clarifying that the tool is 'free' (no cost) and requires an owned ideaId. It also broadly describes what the analysis covers (momentum, timing, opportunity). 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 extremely concise at just two sentences, each adding distinct value. The first sentence states the purpose and content, the second covers usage guidance and constraints. No filler or repeated information from structured fields.
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 that there is an output schema (though not shown in detail), the description is appropriately complete: it explains when to use, what the return covers, and the ownership constraint. The only minor gap is no mention of pagination or rate limits, but that is acceptable for a single-parameter read-only tool.
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% (the only parameter 'ideaId' is described). The description adds that the ideaId must be owned by the user, which marginally enhances the schema's bare description. Since coverage is high, a baseline 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Return market signal analysis for an idea', specifying key components 'trend momentum, timing analysis and market opportunity indicators'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_market_trends', 'get_demand_proof', and 'get_competitive_density' by focusing on the holistic signal analysis for a single idea.
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 provides clear guidance: 'judge whether now is the right moment to pursue the idea' and notes it is 'Read-only and free'. It also imposes the precondition 'pass an ideaId you own'. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or mention any alternatives among the many sibling 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.
