The AI tool market is exploding faster than anyone can keep up—this post dives into how to cut through the hype and find a tool that works for you—includes research on 50 tools and a custom prompt!
Nate
We’re all drowning in AI tools. And yet at the same time we’re all running around with FOMO worried about missing on an AI tool.
Why is this? Because AI is actually really useful. There are real aha moments. Good tools can offer tremendous value if properly integrated into our workflows.
The challenge is that figuring out if those tools work for us is really hard.
When I ask “which of these tools are worth it?” I get hand-waving about productivity or maybe a little bit of uncomfortable silence.
The problem isn’t that AI tools don’t work. It’s that teams (and individuals) are adopting them like candy instead of medicine—grabbing whatever looks interesting instead of diagnosing what hurts.
The dynamic driving this is simple: intelligence is getting cheaper every quarter, which means the ability to select and deploy the right intelligence for the right problem is becoming the new competitive advantage. And it also means the number of AI tool is going to continue exploding.
It has gotten so that just finding a tool that has real value for your workflow is tough.
I’ll be honest: just imagining finding a new tool feels exhausting some days.
I wrote this guide to help lift that load for you—whether you’re thinking in terms of team tools or adding an individual AI tool to your stack.
And being me I attacked this problem from all sides:
- I built a strategic framework for tool evaluation—how I think about tackling vendor hype and getting to the real value AI tools bring:
- How to define measurable pain and the questions to ask to help you count the real costs before picking a tool
- A scorecard system with kill criteria and a default-to-no stance, plus a portfolio investment approach to tools
- Vendor diligence tactics and pricing trap detection—what to ask about observability, export paths, and incident history, and when to walk away if they hand-wave
- A complete 50-tool guide organized by function, not vendor marketing—showing my research methodology applied across every major use case with quantified evidence, implementation trade-offs, and honest user feedback.
- 10 foundation tools that make LLM apps safe and repeatable before you build anything else on top.
- 8 data and analytics platforms that prep and surface truth for decision-making.
- 10 knowledge and content tools that draft, summarize, record, and produce media across formats.
- 16 expert copilots purpose-built for specific roles—clinicians, sellers, recruiters, legal teams, creatives, and builders.
- 6 ops and finance intelligence tools for revenue prediction, personalization, and cashflow management.
- A comprehensive conversational prompt you can use to evaluate any AI tool yourself using the same framework, so you’re not dependent on my research six months from now when the landscape shifts again.
- A structured conversation that helps you define actual pain points, map integration reality, identify failure modes, set measurement criteria, and make disciplined go/no-go decisions.
- Works for tools I haven’t covered, tools that don’t exist yet, or re-evaluating tools already in your stack that might not be pulling their weight.
This isn’t vendor marketing. It’s the opposite. It’s a field guide for anyone who needs to build an AI stack that actually works—one that saves time, improves output quality, and scales without creating technical debt or budget bloat.
The shift is already happening. The teams and individuals that win aren’t the ones with the most AI tools. They’re the ones with the right AI tools, deployed with clear intention against real bottlenecks.
Let’s figure out what that looks like for you.
Subscribers get all these newsletters!
Subscribed
Grab the AI tool evaluation prompt
This prompt gives you a conversational AI advisor that walks you through the hard questions most people skip when evaluating AI tools—the questions that separate the 1% of tools worth buying from the 99% that waste your money.
Instead of letting you rationalize vague promises like “improved productivity” or “better insights,” it forces you to name specific pain points with measurable metrics, identify who’ll actually maintain the tool when it breaks at 2am, and articulate the worst-case failure scenario you need to survive. It works by blocking you from proceeding past each question until you’ve given concrete, specific answers—no hand-waving, no “we’ll figure it out later,” no confusing aspiration with actual problems.
By the end, you’ll either have a rigorous 14-day pilot plan with clear kill criteria, or you’ll have saved yourself from buying another tool that looked impressive in the demo but would’ve died quietly in production three months later. The default recommendation is always “don’t buy”—the tool has to earn its way into your stack by passing every test.
Grab the full 50 tool report
I built this guide because I’m tired of watching teams drown in AI tool sprawl while struggling to justify any of it to leadership.
Here’s what you actually get: role-specific breakdowns that show exactly which tools kill which pain points, backed by quantified evidence and real user feedback. Not “productivity gains” in the abstract—concrete data on what changes. A developer can see which coding assistants reduce debugging time and by how much. A product manager gets the ROI breakdown on research tools, complete with implementation trade-offs they’ll actually face.
The persona-based layout saves you hours of evaluation work. Instead of testing twenty AI writing tools, a marketer can jump straight to the three that matter for their function, with honest takes on pricing surprises and performance quirks in “The Tea” sections. The “Integration Complexity vs. Advantage” scale helps you sequence adoption—what’s worth testing now versus what can wait until you’ve built more infrastructure.
This isn’t a hype document. It’s a field guide for teams who need to build an AI stack that actually works—one that saves time, improves output quality, and scales intelligently without bloating your budget or creating technical debt. Every recommendation includes the catches, the costs, and the evidence behind the claim.
Why 99% of AI Tools Will Waste Your Money (And the 3 Questions That Will Save You)
====================================================================================
There are more than 100,000 AI tools in the market right now. Most will be useless for your specific needs. Many will actively harm your workflows by adding complexity without delivering proportional value.
But this isn’t an anti-tools manifesto. The right tools—the ones that pass rigorous evaluation—can transform how you work. The problem is separating signal from noise in a market flooded with venture-backed products optimizing for demos rather than sustained value delivery. My goal is to help you find the tools that actually matter, the ones that compound value rather than accumulate debt.
I’ve advised Fortune 500 companies on AI transformation and evaluated roughly 50 AI tools over the past year. What’s emerged is a clear pattern: tools fail not because they’re poorly built, but because buyers skip the hard questions upfront. They don’t define the pain crisply. They don’t map integration complexity honestly. They don’t plan for failure modes explicitly.
This framework gives you three questions to ask before buying any AI tool. Answer all three with confidence and you’ve likely found something worth deploying. Fail any one of them and you should walk away, regardless of how impressive the demo looked.
Does It Kill a Pain We Can Measure?
The first question: what specific pain point does this tool address, and can you measure that pain?
Not hopes. Not dreams. Not how transformative the vendor promises this will be. A concrete problem that exists right now, described in one clear sentence, measured before and after.
Take Lakera Guard, which stops prompt injection attacks in production AI systems. That’s a laser-focused pain point. If you’re running customer-facing AI applications, prompt injection represents a measurable security risk. You can count attacks. You can evaluate whether Lakera Guard reduces that number. The value proposition is unambiguous.
Or consider something more individual: you want to organize conversations across ChatGPT, Claude, and Perplexity in one place. That’s a specific pain. Nessie Labs built a Mac app for exactly this—it imports ChatGPT chats, tracks Chrome-based conversations, and provides a unified knowledge base. It’s imperfect. It doesn’t work with the native Claude desktop app. It doesn’t automatically capture ChatGPT conversations outside Chrome. But you can evaluate whether it solves your organizational problem.
The discipline matters. I rarely see this rigor from tool shoppers, whether individuals or enterprises. Instead, people fall in love with capabilities. “This could help us be more productive.” “This might improve our customer experience.” “This could unlock new insights.”
Those aren’t pain points. Those are aspirations. Aspirations don’t give you the clarity needed to evaluate whether a tool delivers value or whether you’re paying for potential.
If you can’t write down in one sentence exactly what metric this tool will improve and by how much, you’re not ready to buy it. I make clients complete this sentence before proceeding: “Tool X reduces [specific metric] caused by [concrete problem] in [precise context].” If they can’t fill in those brackets with real numbers and real scenarios, the conversation ends.
For individuals, this process moves faster but the principle remains. You should still name the pain explicitly. Maybe it’s “I spend 20 minutes per day hunting for past AI conversations I can’t find” or “I write the same email explanations 15 times per week.” Write it down. Make it concrete. Measure it for a week. Then evaluate whether the tool actually solves it.
For businesses, this requires stakeholder alignment. The person feeling the pain, the person who’ll use the tool, and the person paying for it need to agree on what constitutes success. That alignment work happens before the pilot, not during.
Can We Integrate and Sustain This Tool?
Assuming you’ve identified a real pain point, the second question addresses honest effort assessment: can you actually integrate this tool into your workflow or system, and can you sustain it over time?
This differs for individuals versus enterprises, but the principle holds. You need to map the full cost of change.
For individuals, the cost is primarily behavioral. Maybe you’re accustomed to desktop apps for Claude and ChatGPT instead of Chrome. Maybe you’ve never exported a zip file of old ChatGPT conversations. Maybe you’re not genuinely committed to organizing AI chats—you just liked the idea. These aren’t technical barriers, but they’re real. You must decide whether the ongoing effort of changing your behavior justifies solving the pain you identified.
The good news: individuals can run this assessment in hours or days. Install the tool. Use it for three days straight. Notice where it creates friction. If you’re already abandoning it by day three, you won’t sustain it by month three.
For enterprises, complexity explodes exponentially. Teams need training. They need to understand edge cases where the tool fails. IT must support it. It will touch other tools in your ecosystem. It will create dependencies. Every integration point is a potential failure point, requiring people who understand troubleshooting when things break.
I force the sustainability question by asking for a concrete owner and a runbook. Who configures this tool? Who watches the alerts? Who handles model drift? Without clear answers—specific names attached—the tool won’t survive in production. I’ve watched too many AI tools get deployed enthusiastically, then slowly rot because nobody owned ongoing maintenance.
I’ll often run a mock incident with the team: something breaks at 2am on a Saturday. Who gets paged? What do they do? If the answer involves extensive hand-waving or “we’ll figure it out,” that signals trouble.
Good tools make sustainability easier. They have clear documentation, straightforward setup processes, obvious maintenance requirements. They give you control over configuration and alerts in ways that map to how your organization actually works. Poor tools assume most integration work falls on you. They ship with vague documentation, require custom development to fit your systems, create technical debt from day one.
If a tool needs bespoke glue code, manual babysitting, or touches more than three teams just to keep running, the integration cost likely exceeds the value.
I always examine documentation before serious evaluation. Documentation reveals whether the company has thought through what it actually takes to run their product in production. Thin or hand-wavy documentation about integration signals painful discovery work ahead.
The real question: are we ready to own this? Not just buy it, but own it. Ownership is where most AI tool purchases collapse.
What’s the Worst Failure Mode, and Can We Stomach It?
The third question addresses risk: what happens when this tool fails in the worst possible way, and can you live with those consequences?
For individuals, stakes are usually manageable. If Nessie Labs stops working, you lose some organizational structure for AI chats. Annoying, not catastrophic. If you forget to use Chrome for a conversation, you miss capturing one chat. Not ideal, but survivable. The worst case is typically wasted money and time, not existential risk.
For companies, failure modes matter enormously.
Consider Mem0, which provides memory layers for customer success AI agents. The value proposition is compelling—your AI remembers customer context and delivers more personalized interactions. But what if catastrophic failure occurs? What if memory leakage causes customer data to bleed across accounts? Can you stomach the trust loss? Do you have architectural safeguards preventing this? Do you have a crisis communication plan ready if it happens anyway?
Or take Lakera Guard again. It’s designed to stop prompt injection attacks, but nothing is perfect. What if a sophisticated attack succeeds? What systems downstream contain the damage? What monitoring detects when something has gone wrong? Have you game-theoried the failure scenario?
I make teams name the worst case explicitly. Not vague terms like “security incident” but concrete terms: data leak, hallucinated action that moves funds, regulatory breach, silent outage that corrupts records for three weeks before detection. Then I ask: can we box this via design? Can we add guardrails, rate limits, synthetic canary tests, red-team scripts that would catch this before it hits customers?
If the worst-case scenario is existential for your business—legal liability, catastrophic brand damage—and you can’t engineer around it, you can’t deploy the tool. Period.
This planning separates mature organizations from ones optimizing for moving fast. Mature organizations know every tool introduces new failure modes, and they explicitly decide which risks they’re willing to accept before deploying anything to production.
Turning Questions Into a Scorecard
The three questions provide a mental model, but to make them operational you need something you can actually run against any tool you’re evaluating. Over the past year, reviewing roughly 50 AI tools using this framework, what’s emerged is a single-page scorecard that forces clarity.
For each question, write down three things: what you’re claiming the tool will do, how you’ll measure it in 14 days, and what the kill criteria is. This sounds simple, but it’s remarkable how many tool evaluations collapse when you attempt to fill this out.
For the pain point, write one sentence following the formula mentioned earlier. Then pick one primary metric—not five metrics, one. Invalid JSON rate if you’re dealing with structured output. P0 security incidents blocked if it’s a guardrail. PR rework minutes if it’s a code tool. First-response time if it’s customer support. Days sales outstanding if it’s AR automation. Your kill criterion is typically that you need at least 20-30% improvement on that metric, with statistical significance, at your agreed sample size. If you’re not hitting that threshold, kill the pilot.
For sustainability, write down the concrete owner and the runbook. Not “engineering team” but “[Name], senior backend engineer, with escalation to security team for policy violations.” Define what a weekly ops review looks like. Run a mock incident and measure mean time to resolve. Your kill criterion: if the tool needs bespoke glue code, manual babysitting more than twice weekly, or touches more than three teams to keep running, it doesn’t survive.
For failure modes, name the specific worst case and document the guardrails you’re adding. Scoped permissions, RBAC, rate limits, canary tests, whatever’s appropriate. Your kill criterion: if the worst case is existential and you can’t box it through architectural constraints, you don’t deploy.
I also add a fourth bonus question that’s emerged from this work: does this tool make other workflows better automatically? Some tools are compounding primitives. Structured output enforcement reduces errors everywhere you use LLMs. RAG with citations grounds every answer your AI gives. Guardrails harden all your agents at once. If a tool compounds—if it creates value across multiple use cases beyond the one you bought it for—it gets prioritized. These are the tools that earn their integration complexity.
Seven Tool Archetypes That Actually Work
After reviewing 50 tools, clear patterns have emerged. Most tools that pass the three-question test fall into one of seven archetypes. Understanding these patterns helps you evaluate new tools faster because you’ve already thought through what good looks like in each category.
Structure enforcers are primitives that make LLM input and output deterministic. They add schemas, typing, function calling—anything that prevents malformed output. Tools like Instructor for typed JSON responses, or code quality gates like CodeAnt or Snyk that enforce security patterns. These are immediately measurable: you can track percentage of valid parses, PR rework minutes, or vulnerabilities per thousand lines of code. I’ve seen these reduce malformed output by 40-60% in the first week. They’re low complexity to integrate and they compound across every workflow that touches the LLM.
Safety and policy guardrails handle prompt injection detection, toxicity filtering, egress policy enforcement, jailbreak shields. Lakera Guard is the canonical example. The value proposition is real risk reduction for production AI systems, and you can measure attack block rate, false positive percentage, and latency overhead. The catch is that guardrails add latency—usually 50-200ms per call—so you need to tune your thresholds by channel and run shadow mode first to understand your false positive rate before enforcing blocking. But if you’re running customer-facing AI at scale, this is non-negotiable infrastructure.
Retrieval and grounding tools provide managed RAG over your files and data with citations. Google’s File Search in Gemini is a clean example. Integration is usually fast, and the payoff is measurable: answer citation coverage percentage, support deflection rate, cost per query. The killer feature is citations—being able to point to exactly where an answer came from cuts hallucinations and builds trust. Watch for freshness policies though. RAG systems can serve stale data if you’re not careful about re-indexing frequency, and you need coverage alerts that tell you when the system can’t find sources for common queries.
Memory layers provide persistent, queryable conversation memory with observability. Mem0 is the example in the customer success context. The value is token cost reduction and latency improvement—you’re not resending entire conversation histories every time—plus better factual accuracy in long-horizon interactions. The win rate on memory layers is high when the architecture is clean, but you need governance. What gets stored, how long it persists, what the “forget” workflow looks like, how you prevent PII spillage or memory contamination across customer boundaries. Get the scoping wrong and you’ve created a compliance nightmare.
Workflow and orchestration platforms give you low-code prompt chains, eval frameworks, deployment pipelines, and monitoring. Vellum is the tool I reference most here. The value is that it enables cross-functional iteration and provides a governed path to production. You can measure cycle time from prompt change to production deployment, and eval pass rate. These tools are medium complexity—you need to use them consistently to extract value—but they’re force multipliers for teams running multiple AI features. The trap is proprietary DSLs. Export your prompts and eval sets on day one so you’re not locked in.
Conversation operations tools handle support and sales—AI deflection, warm transfer, conversation intelligence, forecasting. Intercom Fin for automated support, Retell for warm transfer, Gong or Clari for deal intelligence. These have clear volume and time savings if they’re priced sanely, and strong analytics for measuring percentage auto-resolved, abandonment rate, time to first reply, forecast mean absolute error. The pricing models are where these get dangerous. Per-resolution pricing can shock you when it scales. You need hard caps, routing rules that qualify what goes to AI versus human, and budget alerts before you’re surprised by a 10x bill.
Operations and compliance accelerators help with security and compliance drafting, AR automation, contract review. Secureframe Comply AI for compliance documentation, Tesorio for AR automation, LegalFly for contract red-flag detection. These have direct time and cash impact that’s easy to baseline. Audit prep hours saved, DSO reduction, contract review time. They’re medium complexity to integrate because they touch sensitive workflows, but the ROI is typically obvious within the first month if you’ve chosen the right pain point.
Everything else—general copywriters, AI presentation generators, novelty agents—is accessory tier. Use them sparingly, only when a specific team can prove a measured lift. I’ve seen too many companies buy writing assistants because they “seem useful” without any measurement of whether they actually reduce editing time or improve output quality.
The 2x2 That Actually Matters
When triaging tools quickly, the most useful lens is integration complexity versus advantage delivered. This gives you a portfolio strategy.
Low complexity, high advantage tools get bought first. These are structure enforcers like Instructor, managed RAG like File Search, Grammarly-class assistants that work in-place without changing workflow, analytics tools like Mixpanel or Amplitude if you’re currently uninstrumented, Intercom Fin if you’re already on Intercom, Otter for transcripts. Deploy these fast, measure the lift, move on.
Medium complexity, high advantage tools need pilots with guardrails. Lakera Guard, code and security gates like Snyk or CodeAnt, memory layers like Mem0, Vellum for orchestration, Lindy-style automation, Clari for sales, Tesorio for AR, Abridge for medical documentation. These take real integration work but the payoff justifies it if you follow the two-week bake-off process I’ll detail below. You can’t just turn these on and forget them—they need tuning and monitoring—but they solve real problems.
High complexity, high advantage tools are only for committed teams with dedicated ownership. Databricks Lakehouse AI, Snowflake Cortex deployments, Nuance DAX for medical transcription at scale, full RevOps platforms. These require architectural changes, multi-team coordination, and months of rollout. They can deliver transformative value but you need executive sponsorship and long-term commitment. If you can’t assign a senior person to own it full time for six months, don’t start.
Then there are the caution cases: new and unproven tools, or tools with low signal-to-noise ratio. Generic copywriting tools, flashy slide generators, nascent voice AI that doesn’t have warm transfer to human fallback, per-resolution chatbots without pricing caps. You can experiment with these on the side, but they shouldn’t be in your core stack unless they graduate to one of the other quadrants.
The portfolio strategy that works: 70% primitives and guardrails, 20% workflow and orchestration, 10% bets on emerging categories. Primitives give you compounding value. Orchestration gives you leverage. Bets give you optionality. But the bulk of your spend and your integration bandwidth should go to boring infrastructure that reduces errors and improves safety.
Known Failure Modes and How to Pre-Empt Them
After watching teams deploy AI tools for the past two years, I can tell you exactly where things break. The failure modes are predictable. What varies is whether teams plan for them.
Hallucinated structure causes downstream crashes. Your LLM returns JSON that looks valid but has wrong keys or type mismatches, and three systems down the pipeline crash trying to parse it. The fix: schema enforcement with retries—this is what Instructor does—plus temperature set to zero for extraction tasks, plus unit tests on your prompts that validate output shape. Test this in dev with deliberately malformed prompts to make sure your error handling actually works.
Guardrail drift and latency taxes surprise you three months in. Your guardrail was tuned in pilot for high precision, but as traffic scales you discover it’s adding 200ms to every request and blocking legitimate customer queries at 8% false positive rate. The fix: threshold tuning by channel—your support chat can tolerate more latency than your checkout flow—shadow mode first where you log what would have been blocked without actually blocking it, and SLOs on added latency that you monitor weekly.
RAG wrongness from stale sources or missing citations destroys trust. Your AI answers a question with confidently wrong information because it’s grounding on a document that’s six months out of date, or it gives an answer without citing any source so nobody can verify it. The fix: freshness policies that automatically re-index documents on update, citations required on every answer with fallback to “I don’t have enough information” if sources aren’t found, coverage alerts that tell you when common question categories have low source match rates.
Per-resolution pricing shock comes when your usage scales 3x faster than expected and suddenly your AI support tool costs more than your entire human team did. The fix: hard caps negotiated in contract, routing rules that send only qualified interactions to the AI, “AI first pass only” modes where human reviews anything the AI tries to close, monthly budget alerts tied to usage metrics so you see the spike coming.
Memory contamination or PII spillage happens when your memory layer doesn’t properly scope memories to the right context boundaries and customer data leaks across accounts. The fix: scoped memories with entity-level isolation, “forget” endpoints built into your workflow from day one, DLP scans on memory contents, regular audits of what’s actually being stored.
Agent-to-human handoff awkwardness makes customers repeat themselves and kills satisfaction. Your AI agent tries to handle something, fails, hands off to human support, but the human has no context about what the AI already tried. The fix: warm transfer with agent whisper—the AI tells the human agent what it tried and what it learned—plus context payload that includes conversation history, escalation after N consecutive failures so customers don’t get stuck in a loop.
Tool sprawl creates alert fatigue. You’ve deployed six AI tools, each with its own monitoring dashboard, each sending alerts to different channels, and nobody can tell what’s actually broken versus what’s noise. The fix: designate a single observability layer—either Vellum or your own aggregation system—and route all tool alerts there with consistent severities and runbooks.
The theme across all of these: failure modes are predictable, mitigations are knowable, but you must plan for them before deployment. Most teams skip this step in their enthusiasm to ship. Don’t be most teams.
Pricing and Lock-In Tripwires
The last thing I’ll warn you about is where vendors hide the true cost. You look at the pricing page, it seems reasonable, then six months later you’re trapped.
Per-resolution or per-seat creep is the classic trap with conversation tools. Intercom Fin, Zendesk AI, anything that charges per interaction or per agent. The starter pricing looks fine but what happens when you scale to full customer base? Set hard caps in contract. Define routing rules that qualify what interactions should use AI versus go straight to human. Calculate your actual volume and get a not-to-exceed price in writing.
Indexing versus query costs in RAG tools surprise people. The indexing is cheap until you realize you’re re-indexing your entire document base weekly because your content is dynamic. Or the queries are cheap until you realize your users are running hundreds of searches per day. Simulate your real document sizes and real query patterns before you commit. Check the export story—can you get your vectors out if you need to switch vendors?
Security and SOC2 surcharges are hidden behind “enterprise” tiers. Many vendors show you attractive pricing and then tell you that if you want SSO, SCIM, audit logs, or compliance certifications, that’s a 2-3x multiplier. Get the enterprise pricing quote early if any of that matters to you.
Proprietary DSLs for workflows lock you in. The vendor has a slick interface for building prompt chains or agents, but it’s their own format that doesn’t export cleanly to anything else. Export your prompts and eval sets on day one. Test the export to make sure it’s actually usable. Maintain a shadow version in a vendor-neutral format if the tool is core to your operations.
On-prem premiums for code assistants force a privacy-versus-quality tradeoff. GitHub Copilot, Tabnine, others—the cloud version works better because it has more data, but the on-prem version keeps your code behind your firewall. You pay a significant premium for on-prem and you get worse suggestions. Know the tradeoff you’re making.
The overarching principle: if the pricing model doesn’t make sense at 10x your pilot scale, don’t start the pilot. And if you can’t export your data, prompts, and configuration in a usable format, you’re not buying a tool—you’re buying a dependency.
Ten Questions for Vendor Diligence
When I’m evaluating a tool seriously, these are the questions I ask that surface reality fast. Most vendors are not prepared for them, which tells you something.
- Show me observability. I want to see inputs, outputs, eval results, and drift graphs over time. Not a demo of the UI, actual data from a production deployment. If they don’t have this, they don’t know if their own product works.
- What’s your de-identification and PII handling story end-to-end? How do you detect PII? What do you do when you find it? What’s logged? What’s retained? Who has access? If they hand-wave about “industry best practices,” they haven’t thought it through.
- How do we export our data, configurations, and memories? Show me the export format. I want to see a real export file. If they tell you it’s “coming soon,” walk away.
- Which parts of this are your actual IP versus thin wrappers on a model API? I’m not paying enterprise SaaS prices for a thin layer over OpenAI’s API that I could build myself in a weekend. If their core value is convenience, price it as convenience, not as IP.
- What broke for your last three churned customers? Names withheld obviously, but I want the pattern. If they say “we haven’t had churn,” they’re either brand new or they’re lying. The answer tells you what you’re going to struggle with.
- What’s your latency at P95 under our traffic shape? Median latency is a lie—it’s the tail latency that kills user experience. I want to know what happens when they’re under real load and what happens when their upstream model API is slow.
- What are your false positive and false negative rates on our data after tuning? Every guardrail, every classifier, every detection system has error rates. I want to know what they are and how we tune them. If they claim zero false positives, they’re blocking too much. If they claim zero false negatives, they’re blocking too little.
- What roadmap items would we have to wait for to meet our requirements? I want to know what’s not built yet that they’re assuming we’ll wait for. If the answer is “nothing, we’re ready now,” I’m immediately skeptical because nobody’s product is complete.
- Show me your incident response SLA and comms plan. I want to see a real postmortem from an actual outage. How fast did they detect it? How did they communicate? What did they fix? This tells you how they operate under stress.
- What’s the cheapest way to achieve 80% of this value without buying your product? This is the question that makes vendors uncomfortable, but good vendors have an answer. They’ll tell you exactly why the last 20% is hard and expensive and why their tool makes it easy. Bad vendors will dodge the question because they don’t actually know what their differentiation is.
Building a No-Tools Tool Culture
The best way to think about this whole problem space is to default to no. Start with the assumption that you don’t need the tool. Make the tool prove itself by passing your tests. Be rigorous about it. Keep your wallet closed unless you get three clear yeses.
This isn’t about being a Luddite or resisting innovation. It’s about being strategic. Every tool you add creates complexity. Every integration creates maintenance burden. Every new system creates cognitive overhead for your team. The best organizations I’ve seen aren’t the ones moving fastest on tool adoption—they’re the ones being most selective about which tools actually matter.
When you do find a tool that passes all three tests, invest. Integrate it properly. Sustain it well. Extract every ounce of value from it. But make it earn its way into your stack.
The playbook I’ve laid out here is designed to operationalize the framework. It takes the three questions from philosophy to practice. It forces you to write down what you’re claiming, how you’ll measure it, and what would make you kill it.
Most AI tools fail not because they’re bad products but because buyers skip the hard questions. They don’t define the pain crisply. They don’t map the integration complexity honestly. They don’t plan for failure modes explicitly. Then they’re surprised when the tool doesn’t deliver.
Your competitive advantage isn’t moving fastest on AI adoption. It’s being most selective about which tools actually compound value for you. Default to no. Make the tool earn its way into your stack by passing all three tests. Be rigorous about measurement, integration, and risk.
There are billions of dollars being thrown at AI tools right now, and a significant portion of that spending is sustaining the VC ecosystem rather than solving real problems. The market dynamics reward vendors who can sell hope and potential, not necessarily vendors who can deliver sustained value. This creates noise. You’ll be pitched constantly. You’ll see impressive demos. You’ll hear about competitors who are “moving fast” on AI adoption.
But in a market with 100,000 AI tools, discipline is what separates the companies that extract value from AI from the companies that just accumulate AI debt.
Run this playbook, and you’ll stop paying for potential. You’ll start buying compounding capability.
I make this Substack thanks to readers like you! Learn about all my Substack tiers here
Subscribed
