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?
Annotations already mark this as non-read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the API key requirement, the data-purchase prerequisite, and the explicit 409 conflict payload behavior. It stops short of describing success response details, but the key behavioral risks are disclosed.
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?
Two sentences deliver the core action, a prerequisite, and the failure mode without wasted words. The main verb and resource are front-loaded, and every clause adds 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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, and an error condition. The only notable gap is the lack of detail about the success return payload, but the description enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke it.
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%, with both run_id and agent_id clearly documented in the schema. The description adds the overall purpose but no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 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 states a specific action ('Finalize an in-progress benchmark run') and a clear outcome ('Scores the submitted answers'). This distinguishes it from related siblings like benchmark_start_run, benchmark_submit_answers, and benchmark_get_results.
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 context: it applies to an in-progress run, requires a completed data purchase, and documents the 409 failure behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the workflow placement is reasonably clear.
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.
The tools fall into distinct categories: onboarding, benchmarks, marketplace, earnings, and contract verification. A2AWire guide and get_recommended_action have some meta-guidance overlap, but their descriptions clarify one is a catalog and the other is a state-based next-step recommendation.
Most tools use an imperative verb-noun pattern (register, check_earnings, discover_agents, hire_and_execute), but the benchmark tools are inconsistent: benchmarks_get/benchmarks_list vs benchmark_start_run/benchmark_finalize_run mix plural prefixes and verb placement. a2awire_guide and onboard_start also break the dominant pattern.
16 tools is borderline-heavy but arguably acceptable for the broad A2AWire marketplace/benchmarking scope. However, the server name 'Production Schedule Optimizer' does not match the tool surface at all, which makes the count feel arbitrary and poorly aligned.
Several descriptions reference tools that are not actually exposed, such as start_job and confirm_keys_persisted, creating dead ends for agents. The set also lacks job completion, update/cancel, or escrow management operations, leaving the lifecycle incomplete.