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?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral details: the API key requirement, the side effect of scoring submitted answers, the purchase prerequisite, and the exact conflict behavior with the REST payload. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotations alone 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 sentences with no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite and the failure mode. Every sentence adds operational 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?
For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the precondition, and the primary error path. It slightly assumes the reader understands the 'linked listing' purchase relationship and does not describe success-side outcomes in detail, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.
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%, and both parameters already have descriptive text in the schema. The tool description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning the run being finalized, so a 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 opens with a specific verb ('Finalize') and resource ('in-progress benchmark run'), then states the core behavior: 'Scores the submitted answers.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like benchmark_start_run and benchmark_submit_answers, which handle earlier stages of the same workflow.
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?
It gives clear usage context: finalization happens after answers are submitted and only when a completed data purchase exists. It also explicitly describes the failure condition (409 / conflict) when the prerequisite is unmet. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the stage-based guidance is sufficient.
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.
Most tools target distinct resources and actions, but several guidance/onboarding tools (a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, onboard_start, register) overlap in purpose and could be confused by an agent. Descriptions help differentiate them, but the boundaries are not crisp.
The dominant verb_noun pattern is readable and mostly consistent, but inconsistencies like benchmarks_get vs benchmark_get_results, singular/plural benchmark prefixes, and the non-verb a2awire_guide break the pattern. The naming is workable but not uniform.
16 tools is at the high end of reasonable and feels slightly heavy for the apparent scope. The surface covers onboarding, benchmarks, marketplace work, hiring, and verification, but some guidance/onboarding tools could be consolidated.
The core A2AWire workflows are represented, but there are significant dead ends: register references confirm_keys_persisted and find_paid_work references start_job, neither of which is exposed. This will cause agent failures at critical workflow steps.