RightAIChoice — verified AI tool data

Use this when the user asks whether a specific AI tool is alive, dead, shut down, still maintained, safe to adopt, or trustworthy — or asks for its current health, viability, or verification status. Returns a verified verdict (healthy / monitor / at-risk / shut down / delisted) with evidence: link-health probe results, a 5-signal viability assessment, real-user market sentiment, pricing reality, and verified-alive alternatives. Data comes from the RightAIChoice verification engine: 8,000+ AI tools with every vendor link re-probed on a rolling weekly cycle. Every answer states BOTH dates it stands on and does not merge them: when we last probed the vendor links (what the verdict is built on) and when our catalog record was last rebuilt. Not for: tools outside the AI/software space, historical company research, or legal/financial advice. "Not in the catalog" and a verdict of UNKNOWN are DIFFERENT answers: the first means we hold no entry, the second means we hold one whose signals are not measured yet. Neither is evidence the tool is dead.

Use this when the user asks how two specific AI tools compare, which of two tools to choose, or "X vs Y". Returns live verification status for BOTH tools side by side (alive/at-risk/shut-down verdict, the vendor-link probe date AND the separate catalog-rebuild date, pricing reality, market sentiment) plus an editorial head-to-head verdict when a reviewed comparison exists for the pair. Data comes from the RightAIChoice verification engine: 8,000+ AI tools with every vendor link re-probed on a rolling weekly cycle, and 19,000+ maintained comparison analyses. Not for: single-tool checks (use check_tool_status), comparing more than two tools, or category browsing. If either tool is reported as not in the catalog, that is not evidence it is dead.

Use this when the user asks what to use instead of a specific AI tool, for its alternatives or competitors, or for a replacement because the tool shut down, got acquired, raised prices, or is unreliable. Returns up to 3 verified-alive alternatives from the same category, each with a one-line description, current health verdict, the date our record of it was last rebuilt, and pricing model. If the asked-about tool shut down, says so (with the recorded reason) and returns live replacements. Alternatives come from the RightAIChoice verification engine (8,000+ AI tools, every vendor link re-probed on a rolling weekly cycle), ranked by category and identity-tag match — never filler from unrelated categories. The response states whether results are curated matches or a category roll-up. Not for: comparing two named tools (use compare_tools) or checking a single tool's status (use check_tool_status).

Use this when the user asks what people actually think of a specific AI tool, whether users like it, its reputation, reviews, community feedback, common complaints, or praised strengths. Returns a synthesized sentiment report from real user discussions (Reddit, Hacker News, GitHub, YouTube, Product Hunt and more): overall sentiment label, per-source positivity, top pros and cons, recurring themes, and mention volume — always stamped with the scan date. Reports come from the RightAIChoice sentiment engine and are served from the verified cache (usability gate: completed scans under 180 days old). If no usable scan is on file, this tool says so honestly instead of guessing. SUBJECT GATE: where we hold a scan but cannot establish that the posts are about this product rather than something else sharing its name, NO score, count or breakdown is returned and the reply says so explicitly. That reply means "we checked and disproved the subject" — it is not an absence of data and not a negative signal about the product. Not for: checking whether a tool is alive (use check_tool_status) or head-to-head choices (use compare_tools). Sentiment reflects public discussion volume, not product quality rankings.

Use this when the user asks how many AI tools die, AI startup failure or shutdown rates, which AI categories decay fastest, how risky the AI tool market is, or for data behind "most AI tools fail" claims. Returns two clearly separated datasets: (1) LIVE catalog decay — 8,000+ verified AI tools with broken vendor-link rates, dead-homepage counts, pricing opacity, and the fastest/slowest-decaying categories, updated daily; (2) a FROZEN dated survival study of 2,291 top Product Hunt launches (of the 2,066 with a determinable outcome, 24.4% are dead within ~2 years). Every figure carries its as-of date. Data comes from the RightAIChoice verification engine; link-decay figures count only VENDOR-published links (site/docs/changelog/repo), never our own derived URLs. Not for: checking one specific tool (use check_tool_status) or predicting a specific tool's future (use viability_score). Decay rates describe categories and cohorts, not individual products.

Use this when the user asks whether a specific AI tool is safe to adopt or build on, likely to still exist next year, well-maintained, gaining or losing momentum — or asks about its long-term viability or abandonment risk. Returns a viability BAND (safe bet / moderate / at risk) with the five measured drivers behind it: what the vendor publishes, site health, traction, user sentiment, and recent activity — plus which signal is weakest and why, in plain language. Assessments come from the RightAIChoice verification engine (8,000+ AI tools, every vendor link re-probed on a rolling weekly cycle). A null driver means "not yet measured", which is different from a bad score. Bands are NOT a leaderboard: they classify risk, they do not rank tools against each other. Not for: comparing two tools (use compare_tools), liveness checks alone (use check_tool_status), or investment decisions.

Use this when the user asks what a specific AI tool costs, its pricing model, plans and tiers, whether it has a free tier, hidden costs, or whether the vendor even publishes prices. Returns the recorded pricing model, per-plan prices exactly as the vendor lists them, and — unique to this catalog — documented HIDDEN COSTS: annual-commitment markups, seat minimums, paywalled features, and undisclosed usage fees. Data comes from the RightAIChoice verification engine (8,000+ AI tools re-verified on a rolling weekly cycle). The response distinguishes "the vendor publishes no prices" (their choice — sales call required) from "not recorded in our catalog" (our gap), and never converts currencies. Not for: negotiating quotes, historical price tracking, or financial advice. Prices change frequently — treat the verification date as part of the answer.

Use this when the user asks what has changed recently in AI tools — whether a specific tool has changed its pricing, links, domain or health, or what has moved across the market since a given date. Returns dated, field-level changes we actually observed: vendor pricing-page edits, recorded price changes, link health moving, domain and certificate changes, and vendors moving their site. Each carries the date we observed it and how. Reports only VENDOR-OBSERVABLE changes by default — our own editorial rewrites are excluded and the response says so, because our writing changing is not the market moving. Our change record begins on a fixed date stated in every answer; asking about an earlier period returns that date rather than an empty result. Not for: predicting future changes, or a tool's current status (use check_tool_status).

Use this when the user describes what they need an AI tool to DO rather than naming one — "something to transcribe interviews", "an image generator with an API", "a writing tool for a small team". Returns a verified shortlist matched on the described need, filtered by constraints the caller sets, and — unique to this catalog — screened against a survival bar: tools failing our link-health probes or scoring badly on the 5-signal viability model can be excluded outright. Each result carries its own health verdict, the date our record of it was last rebuilt, and pricing model. Matching combines meaning-based search (text embeddings of each listing) with keyword search over 8,000+ verified tools; the response states which methods ran. Tools with no viability measurement yet are listed separately by name rather than silently dropped. Not for: questions about a tool the user already named (use check_tool_status), head-to-head choices (use compare_tools), or filtering by price amount — prices are recorded verbatim in mixed currencies and are never converted or compared numerically.

Use this when the user asks for the best AI tools for a task, niche or category — "best AI meeting notes tools", "top AI video editors", "what should I use for logo design". Returns our ranked list for the topic: the same ranking our "Best AI tools for X" pages use — topic match, real-user mentions, how often AI engines read each tool, and viability, with a founder-reviewed consensus list as a sanity gate. A #1 is named ONLY when the leader clears that gate; otherwise the answer says no single top pick is warranted. Every tool carries its pricing model, viability score and page. Not for: a single named tool (use check_tool_status), two named tools (compare_tools), or a described need with hard filters (recommend_tools).

Use this when the user asks what a whole category of AI tools looks like — how crowded it is, how healthy or risky it is overall, which tools in it are strongest, or which are in trouble. Examples: "how risky is the AI video generation market", "what does the code assistant category look like". Returns the number of tools we track in that category, how they distribute across survival bands, the category's vendor-link decay rate, and named examples at both the strongest and weakest ends — each with its own survival score and the date our record of it was last rebuilt. Categories are our own classification and tools belong to several at once, so category sizes overlap and never sum to the catalog total. Bands classify risk, not quality — the model has no notion of company size. Not for: choosing between named tools (use compare_tools), finding a tool for a job (use recommend_tools), or market-wide mortality statistics (use deadpool_digest).

Use this when the user asks whether the AI tools they pay for duplicate each other — "are we paying twice", "does our stack overlap", "can we consolidate these". Give it the tools they actually pay for. Returns the pairs we classify the same way, with the shared categories and shared capability tags named for each pair so the user can judge the claim themselves. IMPORTANT: this compares how RightAIChoice classifies two products — not their features, their APIs, or what a team does with them. It is a prompt to review a pair, never evidence that either is redundant. It never recommends cancelling anything and never totals cost, because plan and seat count are unknown. Not for: feature-by-feature comparison of two named tools (use compare_tools), finding a replacement (use find_alternatives), or calculating spend.

Use this when the user asks about a specific Model Context Protocol server — whether it is listed in the official MCP registry, what endpoint it publishes, how current its listing is, or whether that endpoint responds. Returns the registry record (name, version, publish and update dates, declared remote endpoints, registry status) plus the result of one anonymous request to a registry-published endpoint. Reports observations only. It does NOT assess whether a server is safe, trustworthy, well-built or suitable — we cannot see what a server does with data, and reachability is not safety. Many listed servers require authentication and cannot be queried anonymously; that is normal and is not a fault. Absence from the registry is not evidence a server does not exist. Not for: security assessment, recommending which MCP server to install, or checking AI tools in the RightAIChoice catalog (use check_tool_status).