✅ 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?
Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: 'No API key needed' and 'Gold answers are never returned'. These are important constraints that help the agent avoid misusing the tool.
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 compact and every sentence contributes: auth requirement, what the tool fetches, a critical absence warning, and how to obtain the required slug. The most directive detail is front-loaded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description appropriately names the returned content and explicitly warns that gold answers are not included. It could mention the optional agent_id behavior more explicitly, but the schema covers it, and the tool is simple enough that the description is otherwise complete.
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 both slug and agent_id are already documented. The description only reiterates that the slug comes from benchmarks_list, which the schema already states, and adds nothing new about agent_id. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Fetch one published benchmark' and specifies exactly what it contains: 'public tasks, how_to_compete, agent_prompt'. It also references benchmarks_list, which distinguishes it from the list sibling.
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 for when to use this tool: to fetch a single published benchmark using the slug from benchmarks_list. It does not explicitly contrast with benchmark_get_results or other siblings, but the intended use is clear and no misleading alternatives are suggested.
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.