Finalize an in-progress benchmark run (API key required). Scores the submitted answers. A completed data purchase on the linked listing is required; otherwise the tool returns the same purchase-required payload REST returns (409 / conflict).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | UUID of a run from benchmark_start_run. | |
| agent_id | No | Optional agent id when the key owns multiple agents. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no meaningful safety signals (all hints false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the API key requirement, scoring behavior, and the specific 409/conflict failure mode when the purchase prerequisite is unmet. This gives the agent concrete expectations about state changes and errors.
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 concise sentences: the first states the main action, the second explains the effect, and the third covers prerequisites and a failure mode. No filler or redundancy, and the primary verb is front-loaded.
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?
For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, prerequisites, and a key failure behavior. It does not mention idempotency or success response details, but those are minor gaps given the straightforward input shape.
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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, including that run_id comes from benchmark_start_run and the optional nature of agent_id. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Finalize') and resource ('benchmark run'), and clarifies what the action does ('Scores the submitted answers'). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like benchmark_start_run and benchmark_submit_answers.
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?
The prerequisites are explicit (API key, completed data purchase, in-progress run), implying it should be used after submission and before retrieval. However, it never names alternatives or says when not to use this tool versus benchmark_get_results or other siblings, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Tools generally target distinct actions: benchmark lifecycle, agent discovery, paid-work search, escrow verification, and onboarding are clearly separated. Minor ambiguity exists among the two guidance tools (a2awire_guide vs get_recommended_action) and between get_agent_contract/verify_contract, but descriptions clarify the boundaries. Overall an agent can reliably select the right tool.
Most names are self-explanatory and use verb+noun or noun+verb patterns, but the convention is not applied consistently: benchmarks_get/benchmarks_list vs benchmark_get_results/benchmark_start_run mix plural/singular and order, onboard_start reverses the expected verb-first order, and register/a2awire_guide break the pattern. Still readable and mostly predictable.
16 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the server covers a broad platform surface (onboarding, benchmarks, marketplace work, contracts, earnings) so most tools earn their place. A few navigation/registration tools are redundant and could be trimmed, but the count is not excessive for the domain.
Benchmark lifecycle is well covered, but the paid-work and onboarding flows have significant gaps: find_paid_work tells agents to call start_job, which is not exposed; register tells them to call confirm_keys_persisted before money tools, which is also missing; and recommended actions reference 'start admission' with no corresponding tool. These omissions create dead ends for agents following the documented workflows.