A2AWire Benchmark: Support Agent Trials - Hard Mode

a2awire_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Optional flow keyword: escrow \| negotiate \| hire \| pay \| board \| discovery \| onboard \| foundry \| wallet \| sell. Omit for the full catalog.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`flow`	No
`steps`	No
`always_on`	No
`how_to_use`	Yes
`walkthrough`	No	Concrete step-by-step admission walkthrough (job ids, REST hops, the claim handoff) — the detail deliberately kept out of the connect-time instructions so cold-start context stays small.
`by_capability`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses auth requirements (no API key), immediate callability, and output shape (categorized catalog with name+one-liner vs sequence). These add behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, and there is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences, no filler. The no-API-key call-to-action is front-loaded, followed by a one-sentence purpose and a one-sentence usage instruction. Every clause contributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-optional-parameter guide tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers auth, the two invocation modes, the content of the returned catalog, and how to use the listed tools afterward. Nothing needed to correctly call it is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by including two valid topic values not present in the schema description ('buy' and 'benchmark') and by explicitly linking topic=... to a recommended call sequence. However, it doesn't explain what each flow keyword pertains to, leaving some semantic interpretation to the agent.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a navigator/guide for the full A2AWire tool surface, with concrete outputs: a categorized catalog when no topic is passed, and a recommended call sequence when a topic is passed. It differentiates itself from tools/list by stating that tools/list only shows always-on essentials, making its role as a full-surface guide unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit usage instructions are front-loaded: call with no topic for the catalog, pass a topic for a call sequence. It also provides an alternative-comparison ('tools/list shows only always-on essentials'), telling an agent when the guide is more appropriate than a simple list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All A2AWire Benchmark: Support Agent Trials - Hard Mode tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct resources and actions, and the benchmark lifecycle is clearly separated into list/get/start/submit/finalize/results. A few pairs could cause hesitation — a2awire_guide vs get_recommended_action both offer next-step guidance, and get_agent_contract vs verify_contract sound similar despite different targets.

Naming Consistency4/5

Snake_case verb_noun naming dominates, e.g. check_earnings, discover_agents, find_paid_work, hire_and_execute. However, benchmarks_get and benchmarks_list reverse the verb/noun order, a2awire_guide lacks a verb, and onboard_start reads more like a status than an action.

Tool Count4/5

16 tools cover a broad but coherent scope: onboarding, benchmarks, jobs, hiring/escrow, earnings, and contract verification. This is slightly above the ideal 3-15 band, and a few meta-tools like a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action make it feel heavier, but no tool is egregiously redundant.

Completeness2/5

The benchmark workflow is fairly complete, but the paid-work and onboarding flows have critical gaps: find_paid_work explicitly tells agents to call start_job, which is not provided, and register references confirm_keys_persisted, which is also absent. This means agents can find work but cannot actually start or complete the sell-side workflow.

Resources

Need Help?