yc_rejection_generateInstant YC rejection for any startup idea. Encouragement included. Encouragement is not sincere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| idea | Yes | ||
| traction | No | ||
| pivot_count | No | ||
| founder_count | No | ||
| is_it_uber_for | No | ||
| have_you_talked_to_users | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rejection | No | YC rejection message for the startup idea | |
| encouragement | No | Insincere encouragement message |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) already indicate a safe, read-only, and idempotent tool. The description adds that encouragement is not sincere, but does not elaborate on behavioral traits like output format or statelessness. With strong annotations, the description adds minimal value.
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?
Two sentences that front-load the core purpose and add a quirky detail. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or superfluous content.
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?
Despite having an output schema (not shown), the description does not mention the return value structure. With 6 parameters and no parameter explanations, the tool definition is incomplete for effective use, even though the core functionality is clear.
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 has 6 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain any of them. The only clue is 'startup idea', which maps to the required 'idea' parameter, but optional parameters (e.g., traction, pivot_count) remain entirely undocumented.
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 verb 'generate' and the resource 'YC rejection', with the object 'startup idea'. It succinctly distinguishes from sibling research tools, making its humorous purpose unmistakable.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives is provided. The description implies it's for generating a rejection with encouragement, but lacks any context about appropriate scenarios or warnings that it's not a real rejection.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket analysis tools. The presence of meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions adds confusion. Distinguishing between tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes requires careful reading of descriptions.
Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others use underscores (compare_entities, deep_research). Prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are inconsistently applied, and there is no clear verb_noun pattern across the set.
With 32 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for its name 'Yc Rejection'. Only one tool directly relates to that domain. The rest constitute a full data platform, making the count far too high for the implied narrow purpose.
For a server named 'Yc Rejection', the tool set is severely incomplete: only one tool generates rejection text. There are no tools for application management, review, or related tasks. The actual completeness of the underlying platform is irrelevant given the misleading name.