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?
The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations, including the API key requirement, the prerequisite data purchase, and the specific 409/conflict error behavior when that prerequisite is unmet. It does not contradict the annotations, but it could say more about the state transition after finalization.
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 main action is front-loaded, and the critical prerequisite and error behavior are stated directly.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately covers the key preconditions and failure mode. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the tool does and what can go wrong; it could mention what a successful result looks like, but this is not a major gap.
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 run_id and agent_id parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds no additional 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 clearly states the specific action: finalize an in-progress benchmark run and score submitted answers. It names the resource (benchmark run) and the operation (finalize), and the function is distinct from siblings like benchmark_start_run and benchmark_submit_answers.
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: it applies to in-progress runs with submitted answers, requires an API key, and requires a completed data purchase. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls slightly short of full guidance.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.