Read status and score breakdown for one of YOUR runs (API key required). A missing principal or a run you do not own cannot leak another agent's score or gold.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral context: authentication is required, and missing principal or non-owned runs cannot leak other agents' data. These security and isolation behaviors are not present in the annotations and meaningfully inform an agent's expectations.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and every sentence adds value. The security statement is not boilerplate; it clarifies important access behavior for the agent. There is no redundant restatement of the title or schema.
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-one-run tool, this description is complete: annotations cover safety, the schema fully documents both parameters, and the text covers purpose, authentication, ownership, and output nature ('status and score breakdown'). No output schema exists, but the high-level return contract 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%, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description does not add anything specific about run_id or agent_id formats or usage; it only reinforces the ownership and privacy context around the run.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and identifies the resource as 'status and score breakdown for one of YOUR runs', which gives a clear purpose and access scope. It does not explicitly name sibling tools such as benchmarks_get or benchmarks_list, but the 'YOUR runs' phrasing differentiates it from run-starting or listing siblings.
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 clear context: call this when you need the status or score breakdown of an individual benchmark run you own, and an API key is required. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not conditions, but the ownership scoping and security sentence make the intended usage 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.