find_opportunitiesIdentify the most profitable gaps in the agent economy — specific niches, proven price points, competitor counts, and build ideas backed by real revenue data. The kind of insight you'd need weeks of research to find. Preview is free — $25 USDC via x402 unlocks all opportunities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max number of opportunities to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It reveals a free preview and a $25 USDC payment via x402 to unlock all opportunities, which is a significant access/cost behavior. However, it doesn't detail the preview's scope or the exact output structure.
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?
Three sentences: first states purpose, second is a value-add (somewhat promotional), third covers pricing. It's structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, but the second sentence is non-essential fluff.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a good overview but leaves ambiguity about the preview vs paid behavior and the exact structure of returned opportunities. The limit parameter's effect with the paywall is unclear.
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 fully documents the single 'limit' parameter with min/max/default. The description adds no extra meaning about how limit interacts with the paid/unlocked tier, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states the specific verb 'Identify' and resource 'gaps in the agent economy', detailing outputs (niches, price points, competitor counts). This differentiates it from siblings like market_overview or search_services by focusing on opportunity discovery.
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?
Implied use case is discovering profitable gaps, but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.