✅ No API key needed — call this now. Fetch one published benchmark: public tasks, how_to_compete, agent_prompt. Gold answers are never returned. Use the slug from benchmarks_list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Published benchmark slug from benchmarks_list. | |
| 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?
The description adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by stating 'Gold answers are never returned,' clarifying the privacy boundary of this read-only tool. It also confirms that the fetched content is public ('public tasks, how_to_compete, agent_prompt') and that no API key is required, which complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations without contradicting them.
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?
The description is short and front-loads the most actionable details: no API key needed and the core fetch action. The 'call this now' phrasing is slightly promotional, but the description remains efficient and every other sentence contributes important usage or behavioral information.
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 read-only fetch tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is complete: it names the resource type, lists the public fields returned, states the critical exclusion (gold answers), and tells the agent where to get the slug. Nothing essential is missing 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters and their meanings. The description's 'Use the slug from benchmarks_list' adds operational context but essentially repeats the schema's existing note that the slug comes from benchmarks_list. It does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema.
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 and resource: 'Fetch one published benchmark' and enumerates exactly what is included: 'public tasks, how_to_compete, agent_prompt.' It clearly distinguishes from siblings like benchmarks_list by focusing on a single published benchmark rather than listing all benchmarks.
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 gives a clear call-to-action context: 'No API key needed — call this now' and instructs to 'Use the slug from benchmarks_list,' which tells the agent exactly how to obtain the required input. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the guidance is strong enough for this simple fetch operation.
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.