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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: API key requirement, purchase prerequisite, and the specific 409/conflict error behavior. It does not fully describe state-transition consequences, but the disclosed error behavior goes beyond what annotations convey.
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 with no filler. The primary action, key prerequisite, and error behavior are all front-loaded and each sentence adds distinct value.
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?
The description covers prerequisites, error behavior, and the scoring effect. It does not describe the success response shape, but no output schema is declared and the sibling benchmark_get_results suggests where results can be retrieved, so the gaps are minor.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both run_id and agent_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the action ('Finalize'), the target resource ('an in-progress benchmark run'), and the core behavior ('Scores the submitted answers'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like benchmark_start_run and benchmark_submit_answers by focusing on the terminal scoring/finalization step.
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 description provides clear conditions for use: the run must be in-progress, answers must have been submitted, and a completed data purchase on the linked listing is required. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the prerequisite wording strongly implies this is used after benchmark_start_run and benchmark_submit_answers, and before benchmark_get_results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.