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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the API key requirement and a confidentiality guarantee that missing principals or non-owned runs cannot leak another agent's score or gold. This strengthens trust and clarifies access behavior.
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 dense, purposeful sentences. The first fronts the verb, resource, and auth requirement; the second adds a high-value security guarantee. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
Given a simple 2-parameter read tool with comprehensive annotations, the description covers purpose, auth, ownership scope, and a key security property. No output schema exists, but 'status and score breakdown' outlines what will be returned; a detailed field list would be nice but is not critical for 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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description adds no new parameter-level details, and its mention of 'YOUR runs' reinforces the ownership semantics also present in the schema's basis without going beyond it.
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 a clear resource ('status and score breakdown for one of YOUR runs'). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling lifecycle tools like benchmark_start_run and benchmark_submit_answers by focusing on reading results of an existing run.
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 for when to use the tool: to read status and score of one of the caller's own runs, with the API key requirement stated. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling serves the same read-results purpose, so the implicit guidance is sufficient.
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.