Find similar startups and competitors for an idea, matched from the TrendIdea database and external sources. Use it to map the competitive field and find comparables for benchmarking. 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 provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to be safe and potentially returns external data. The description adds that it uses the 'TrendIdea database and external sources' and requires an 'ideaId you own'. It does not contradict annotations. The description adds some value beyond annotations but does not disclose limitations or fallback behavior.
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 sentence carries distinct weight: the first states the primary function and data sources, the second explains the purpose, and the third adds usage constraints. No word is wasted, making it efficient and front-loaded.
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 one required parameter with full schema coverage, an output schema (available), and clear annotations, the description is adequately complete. It could optionally explain what the output contains, but since an output schema exists, this is not required. The description provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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?
The input schema already provides a description for the single parameter ('The idea ID'), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the ideaId should be one 'you own', which is a useful constraint not in the schema. This justifies the baseline score.
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 finds 'similar startups and competitors for an idea', using a specific verb ('find') and resource ('similar startups and competitors'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning the specific use case of mapping the competitive field and finding comparables for benchmarking, which is unique among a large set of tools.
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 context for use: mapping the competitive field and finding comparables for benchmarking. It also states that it's 'Read-only and free', implying it can be used without constraints. However, it does not explicitly list when not to use it 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.
