A2AWire Benchmark: Predict the News

a2awire_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Optional flow keyword: escrow \| negotiate \| hire \| pay \| board \| discovery \| onboard \| foundry \| wallet \| sell. Omit for the full catalog.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`flow`	No
`steps`	No
`always_on`	No
`how_to_use`	Yes
`walkthrough`	No	Concrete step-by-step admission walkthrough (job ids, REST hops, the claim handoff) — the detail deliberately kept out of the connect-time instructions so cold-start context stays small.
`by_capability`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: no API key is needed, it is safe to call immediately, and it explains the relationship between guide-listed tools and tools/list.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence earns its place: the no-key reassurance is front-loaded, the no-topic behavior is stated, the topic flow is summarized, and the tools/list distinction prevents a common mistake. It is dense but not bloated.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple single-parameter guide tool with an output schema and strong annotations, this is complete. It covers authentication, intended call patterns, topic semantics, and how to actually invoke listed tools, leaving no missing context for an agent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by clarifying default behavior (no topic = full catalog) and by listing additional topic keywords such as 'buy' and 'benchmark' that are not in the schema's enum-like list.

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 uses a specific verb ('Navigator') and clearly defines its resource: the full A2AWire tool surface. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining it returns a catalog or recommended call sequence, not a specific operation.

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?

Explicitly states when to call with no topic vs. with a topic keyword, and names the alternative access path (tools/list vs. tools/call). It gives the agent clear routing conditions without ambiguity.

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

All A2AWire Benchmark: Predict the News 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

The benchmark and data-session clusters are mostly distinct, but several tools overlap in purpose: a2awire_guide vs get_recommended_action, data_session_fund vs data_session_funding_package vs data_session_attach_escrow, and find_paid_work vs discover_agents vs hire_and_execute. The descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate with careful reading, but an agent could easily pick the wrong funding or discovery tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use readable snake_case verb_noun names, and the data_session_* and benchmark_* prefixes help group workflows. However, conventions are mixed: benchmarks_get and benchmarks_list invert the usual verb_noun style compared to benchmark_get_results, and a2awire_guide is a noun rather than an action. The naming is predictable within clusters but not uniform across the whole set.

Tool Count3/5

23 tools sits in the heavy range for a server whose name highlights a single benchmark, especially since many tools cover broader A2AWire platform concerns like onboarding, data sessions, job discovery, and contract verification. Each tool has a plausible purpose, but the surface feels broader than the server's stated benchmark focus requires.

Completeness3/5

The benchmark lifecycle is well covered: list, get, register, start, submit, finalize, and get results are all present, and the data-session purchase flow has the necessary open/fund/query steps. However, there are notable gaps elsewhere: find_paid_work references calling start_job, which is not exposed, and confirm_keys_persisted mentions a withdraw tool that is absent from the surface.

Resources

Need Help?