Score a startup or product idea across 9 weighted dimensions. Returns an Opportunity Score (0-100), decision label, breakdown, and reasoning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| concept | Yes | Short name/title of the idea | |
| targetMarket | No | Who the product is for | |
| additionalContext | No | Description, problem, monetization notes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool scores across 9 weighted dimensions and returns a structured output, but does not mention any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or data usage. The behavioral traits are moderately transparent but lack depth.
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 very concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with the return elements. No redundant information, every word earns its place.
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?
For a scoring tool, the description covers the basic purpose and output but omits details like the specific 9 dimensions, weighting criteria, or scoring scale. Without an output schema, more context on the breakdown and reasoning would be helpful for complete understanding.
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 schema coverage is 100% (all parameters have descriptions). The tool description adds global context that parameters feed into a weighted scoring algorithm, but does not enrich individual parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool evaluates a startup or product idea across 9 weighted dimensions and returns specific outputs (Opportunity Score, decision label, breakdown, reasoning). The verb 'score' and noun 'idea' are unambiguous, and the tool is distinct from siblings like 'export_idea_report' or 'validate_market_fit'.
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 implies the tool is for initial idea assessment by mentioning the opportunity score and breakdown, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., when to prefer scoring over market fit validation). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are given.
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 analytical function: scoring, market validation, competitor analysis, strategic synthesis, and report export. There is no overlap in purpose, making selection unambiguous.
Four of five tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (export_idea_report, generate_competitor_analysis, score_idea, validate_market_fit). 'strategic_intelligence' deviates as a noun-only name, breaking the otherwise consistent pattern.
Five tools is a well-scoped number for an idea validation server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the validation workflow without redundancy or bloat.
The tools cover core validation (score, market fit, competitor analysis) and strategic synthesis, but strategic_intelligence references analyses like pressure tests, market research, and durability that are not available as standalone tools. Additionally, there is no idea management (e.g., create, list ideas), creating a dependency on external processes to supply ideaIds.