# Pitch Deck Prover MCP

> Pitch Deck Prover forces you to validate your startup pitch against five investor criteria—Problem, Market, Model, Traction, and Ask. It runs an evidence check on your entire fundraising narrative, ensuring you have sourced data, defined unit economics, retained users, and a measurable path forward before you ever meet a VC.

## Overview
- **Category:** productivity
- **Price:** Free
- **Tags:** pitch-deck, fundraising, startup, tam-sam-som, unit-economics, traction, investor-readiness, venture-capital

## Description

You're building a pitch deck for VCs. You think it looks killer. It might, but pretty damn sure it doesn't pass the sniff test.

**`validate_pitch_deck`** runs a complete, rigorous check on your entire fundraising narrative. This tool verifies five major areas—problem evidence, market sizing, unit economics, paid traction, and funding asks—against what actual investors demand before they write you a check. It forces you to prove out your business model using hard data, not just good slides.

When you run **`validate_pitch_deck`**, the system checks if you can validate the core problem evidence by looking for quantified pain points. You gotta show proof that people are hurting; we're talking things like counts from user interviews or dollars currently being spent on clunky workarounds, not just anecdotes about a bad day. If you don't nail down specific numbers proving the pain point exists, your deck fails right there.

It also checks your market sizing by requiring that your Total Addressable Market (TAM), Serviceable Available Market (SAM), and Serviceable Obtainable Market (SOM) figures are sourced from named research groups. The tool verifies these numbers follow established calculation methodologies. You can't just throw around 'billion-dollar opportunities'; you need a traceable source for every single number.

For your business model, the system demands that you calculate unit economics accurately. Defining profitability means specifying key metrics like Customer Acquisition Cost (CAC), Lifetime Value (LTV), gross margin percentages, and payback periods. If you can't build a clear financial path showing how profitable your core transactions are, your deck is useless.

The tool verifies revenue traction by testing if your reported growth metrics are based on actual paid revenue—specifically Monthly Recurring Revenue (MRR) or Annual Recurring Revenue (ARR). It also checks for measurable user retention cohorts. Downloads and waitlist sign-ups don't count; the system needs to see sticky, paying usage that proves people aren't just dipping their toes in.

Lastly, it forces you to define a specific funding ask. You gotta break down the requested capital into exact percentages for use of funds, tie those funds to clear milestones, and provide an accurate runway calculation. This isn't asking for money; this is presenting an audited spending plan. The output gives you five distinct verdicts—whether your problem has proof, if your market numbers are sourced correctly, if your economics hold water, if your traction is paying, or if your ask is fully specified. It tells you exactly what needs fixing before you ever meet a VC.

## Tools

### validate_pitch_deck
Runs a complete, rigorous check on your pitch deck to validate problem evidence, market sizing, unit economics, paid traction, and funding asks against investor standards.

## Prompt Examples

**Prompt:** 
```
We are building an AI-powered project management tool. The market is huge — everyone needs better project management. We have 15,000 downloads and growing fast. We are seeking funding to accelerate growth.
```

**Response:** 
```
PROBLEM_UNVALIDATED — 'Everyone needs better project management' is a belief, not evidence. How many user interviews? What specific pain do they describe? What do they spend today on workarounds? Also: '15K downloads' with no retention data is vanity. 'Seeking funding' with no amount is unevaluable. This deck fails on all 5 axes.
```

**Prompt:** 
```
Problem: 47 user interviews with mid-market engineering managers — 89% report spending 6+ hours/week on status updates (survey N=312). Current workaround: $180/user/year on Jira + Confluence + manual reports. Market: TAM $18.7B (Gartner 2025 PM software), SAM $4.1B (mid-market SaaS, 50-500 employees, English-speaking), SOM $82M (2,100 target companies × $39K ACV, 12-month sales cycle). Model: SaaS, $149/user/month Team, $299/user/month Enterprise. CAC $2,400 (LinkedIn + SDR), LTV $21,400 (36-month avg tenure, $149 × 12 × 3), LTV/CAC 8.9x, payback 4.8 months, 78% gross margin. Traction: $48K MRR, 14 paying customers, 92% D30 retention, 18% MoM growth over 6 months, avg 4.2 daily active sessions per user. Ask: $2.4M seed, 60% engineering (8 hires), 25% sales (3 SDRs + 1 AE), 15% marketing (content + events). Milestones: $200K MRR in 12 months, 80 customers, Series A readiness. Runway: 18 months at current burn. Terms: 15% equity at $16M post-money.
```

**Response:** 
```
PITCH_PROVEN — Investor-grade pitch validated. Problem: 47 interviews + N=312 survey, quantified pain ($180/user/year workaround). Market: Gartner-sourced TAM, SAM filtered by segment, SOM grounded in 2,100 targets × $39K ACV. Model: clear tiers, LTV/CAC 8.9x, 4.8-month payback, 78% margin. Traction: $48K MRR, 92% retention, 18% MoM sustained. Ask: $2.4M with 60/25/15 allocation, 18-month runway, $200K MRR milestone. This deck survives the first meeting.
```

**Prompt:** 
```
Problem validated: 30 interviews with HR managers, 76% spend 4+ hours/week on compliance tracking (survey N=200, $120/user/year on spreadsheets). Market: TAM $12B (Deloitte 2025 HR tech), SAM $2.8B (US mid-market), SOM $56M. Model: $99/user/month, CAC $1,800, LTV $14,200, LTV/CAC 7.9x, 72% margin. Traction: 2,400 waitlist signups, 3 pilot conversations, strong interest from Fortune 500 companies. Ask: $1.5M pre-seed for product development.
```

**Response:** 
```
TRACTION_ABSENT — Problem, market, and model pass. But traction fails. 'Waitlist signups' and 'pilot conversations' are not traction — they are awareness. 'Strong interest from Fortune 500' without a signed LOI or paid pilot is anecdotal. Show: paid pilots (even at discount), LOIs with company names, or validated waitlist with deposits. Also: ask needs use of funds breakdown, milestones, and runway — '$1.5M for product development' is too vague.
```

## Capabilities

### Validate Problem Evidence
It checks if you have quantified evidence of a pain point, like user interview counts or current workaround spending.

### Source Market Sizing (TAM/SAM/SOM)
It verifies that your total addressable market numbers come from named sources and follow established calculation methodologies.

### Calculate Unit Economics
You define profitability by specifying CAC, LTV, gross margin percentages, and payback periods for the business model.

### Verify Revenue Traction
It tests if your reported growth metrics are based on paid revenue (MRR/ARR) or measurable user retention cohorts.

### Define Specific Funding Ask
You break down the requested capital into specific percentages for use of funds, clear milestones, and a runway calculation.

## Use Cases

### The Founder's Pre-Meeting Audit
A founder has a pitch ready, but they feel shaky. They run the `validate_pitch_deck` tool and get a 'PROBLEM_UNVALIDATED' verdict. The agent immediately tells them: 'You need 30+ interviews where people raise this pain unprompted.' This forces the founder to go back to the drawing board with concrete user evidence, not assumptions.

### Fixing Flaky Market Sizing
A PM wrote a deck claiming a $10B market. The agent runs `validate_pitch_deck` and flags it as 'MARKET_FICTIONAL.' It demands that the PM narrow down the TAM using named sources (e.g., Gartner 2024) and calculate a realistic SOM based on current go-to-market strategy, immediately shrinking the scope to something achievable.

### Defining True Growth
A team boasts about 'strong interest' from Fortune 500 companies. The agent running `validate_pitch_deck` rejects this as anecdotal and requires measurable traction, like paid LOIs or concrete cohort retention rates (Day-30), grounding the growth narrative in commitment, not curiosity.

### Structuring the Ask
The team wants $2M to 'accelerate.' The agent runs `validate_pitch_deck` and rejects the ambiguity. It forces the user to specify: 60% for engineering hires, 25% for sales tools, and a milestone like '$30K MRR in 12 months,' making the request actionable.

## Benefits

- Stop using vanity metrics. When you run `validate_pitch_deck`, the tool rejects '15K downloads' and forces you to use revenue-based traction like MRR or NRR.
- Avoid building on belief. The Problem Validation pivot requires specific evidence—like 30+ user interviews where they describe the pain unprompted—so your pitch is grounded in reality.
- Define true profitability. You can't skip unit economics. `validate_pitch_deck` forces you to calculate LTV, CAC, and gross margin, preventing fatal flaws like a low LTV/CAC ratio.
- Eliminate vague asks. Instead of 'seeking funds to scale,' the Ask Specification requires an exact amount, a percentage breakdown of spending (e.g., 55% engineering), and measurable milestones for that money.
- Build credibility instantly. By running this tool, you prove your deck survived multiple levels of scrutiny—from market sourcing to financial modeling—making it investor-grade.

## How It Works

The bottom line is: your agent forces you to treat your pitch deck like a financial audit, ensuring every claim has hard numbers and sources attached.

1. Start by feeding your full pitch deck narrative or business plan into the `validate_pitch_deck` tool.
2. The agent runs five sequential checks: Problem, Market, Model, Traction, and Ask. Each check requires specific inputs (e.g., a source name for TAM, an LTV/CAC ratio).
3. You receive an immediate verdict matrix showing which of the five pillars failed validation. The output includes specific coaching messages detailing exactly what evidence or data is missing.

## Frequently Asked Questions

**What does `validate_pitch_deck` check besides just market size?**
`validate_pitch_deck` checks five areas: problem evidence, source market sizing, defined unit economics (CAC/LTV), revenue traction, and the specificity of your funding ask. It’s a full audit, not just a quick review.

**Can I use `validate_pitch_deck` if I don't have MRR yet?**
Yes. While the tool prefers revenue-based traction (MRR/ARR), it accepts and grades other metrics, but only if you provide retention cohorts (Day 1, Day 7, etc.). Downloads alone won't pass.

**Does `validate_pitch_deck` help me with my financial model?**
It enforces the core inputs of a financial model. It requires you to define unit economics—specifically LTV/CAC ratios and gross margin percentages—to ensure your business is structurally profitable, not just growing.

**What should I provide for 'problem validation' using `validate_pitch_deck`?**
You need evidence that the pain exists at scale. That means user interview counts and key quotes where the interviewee raises the problem unprompted, plus quantified spending on current workarounds.

**If I get a failure verdict from `validate_pitch_deck`, how detailed is the feedback?**
The output provides precise coaching messages linked to the specific failed pivot. It doesn't just say 'fail'; it tells you *why* (e.g., MARKET_FICTIONAL) and what type of evidence is missing, forcing you to fix the source material.

**Can `validate_pitch_deck` handle market sizing for non-US geographies?**
Yes, it supports international markets. However, you must provide sourcing data specific to that region (e.g., local industry reports or national census data). Generic global numbers won't pass validation.

**What is the required format for passing through `validate_pitch_deck`?**
The input must be structured like a formal business plan draft. You can feed it raw text, but ensure all claims (TAM numbers, retention rates) are accompanied by named sources and methodologies within your prompt.

**Are there rate limits or usage restrictions when using `validate_pitch_deck`?**
Usage quotas depend on your Vinkius subscription level. Always check the Marketplace dashboard for real-time metrics. High volume users can contact support to discuss increased capacity.

**Does it create pitch deck slides?**
No. It validates that your pitch narrative addresses the five elements investors evaluate — validated problem, sourced market sizing, defined business model, demonstrated traction, and specific ask. It does not generate content. It forces you to prove your content is investor-ready.

**What counts as valid traction?**
Revenue (MRR/ARR), active users with cohort retention rates (D7, D30), week-over-week or month-over-month growth rate over 3+ periods, and engagement metrics (key action frequency per user). Downloads, waitlist signups, social media followers, demo requests, and 'strong interest' are vanity — they measure awareness, not value delivery.

**Can pre-revenue startups use this?**
Yes. Pre-revenue traction includes: LOIs (letters of intent with named companies), paid pilots (even at discount), design partners with contractual commitments, or validated waitlists with deposit or credit card on file. The tool does not require revenue — it requires evidence that someone will pay. 'Strong interest' without commitment is not evidence.