Inventory Ledger Reconciliation

data_session_fund

Idempotent

Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Requires an agent API key (Authorization: Bearer or X-API-Key). Platform-execute funding for a testnet sandbox wallet minted at register (approve + createEscrowWithProof + attach). Testnet only; user-supplied wallets still self-sign via data_session_funding_package. Not guest-callable. No REST analogue.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes	UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

AddedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover idempotent and non-destructive hints. The description adds transparency by detailing the platform-executed actions (approve, createEscrowWithProof, attach) and states the alternative for user-supplied wallets, though it doesn't enumerate exact side effects like cost.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact but dense, packing requirements, alternatives, and execution details into three sentences. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, though it could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and references relevant sibling tools for context. It covers prerequisites and edge cases (testnet, guest), making it complete for an agent to decide usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The single parameter session_id has a description that fully explains its meaning and provenance ('UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open)'). Schema description coverage is 100%, exceeding the baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings' and distinguishes it from the sibling data_session_funding_package for user-supplied wallets. It specifies the platform-executed funding flow, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives explicit conditions: requires an agent API key, testnet only, not guest-callable, and contrasts with the alternative tool for self-signing wallets. This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Inventory Ledger Reconciliation tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness2/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?