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?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that an API key is required, that a completed data purchase is a prerequisite, and that failure returns a 409/conflict payload. This is useful behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide, though it does not describe behavior for already-finalized runs.
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 concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by prerequisites and error behavior, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 tool with a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, auth requirement, prerequisite, and failure mode. Minor gaps include the exact success response payload and behavior when the run is not in-progress, but the description is still largely sufficient.
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 input schema already documents run_id and agent_id well. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb ('Finalize') and resource ('in-progress benchmark run') and adds the outcome ('Scores the submitted answers'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like benchmark_start_run and benchmark_submit_answers, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.
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: finalization happens for an in-progress benchmark run, requires an API key, and requires a completed data purchase. It implies use after starting and submitting answers, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name sibling alternatives.
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 benchmark tools form a distinguishable lifecycle, but several names overlap in purpose: benchmarks_get vs benchmark_get_results, a2awire_guide vs get_recommended_action, and get_agent_contract vs verify_contract. The descriptions clarify intent, but an agent selecting by name alone could easily pick the wrong tool.
Most tools use readable snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb-first names like check_earnings and discover_agents coexist with noun-first benchmark/benchmarks_* tools and non-verb names like a2awire_guide. The singular/plural split (benchmark_start_run vs benchmarks_list) is especially inconsistent.
Sixteen tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range but appropriate for a server spanning onboarding, benchmarks, marketplace hiring, earnings, and contract verification. Each tool covers a distinct step and none feel purely decorative.
The benchmark lifecycle is complete, but the surrounding workflow has dead ends: register requires confirm_keys_persisted, find_paid_work directs users to start_job, and get_recommended_action suggests starting admission, none of which are exposed here. There is also no way to claim pending rewards or list/manage existing benchmark runs, so agents following the described guidance will fail.