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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations by stating the API key requirement, ownership restriction, and the security guarantee that other agents' scores cannot be leaked. This enriches the agent's mental model.
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 sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the security caveat is a relevant, compact addition that earns its place.
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 simple read-only tool with two parameters, the description covers what it does, who can use it, and what security boundary applies. There is no output schema, but the description names the key return concepts ('status and score breakdown'), which is sufficient for this tool's complexity.
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 the parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying that run_id must belong to the authenticated caller and reinforcing the optional nature of agent_id through the ownership context. A baseline of 3 is exceeded by this added semantic nuance.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('status and score breakdown' for a benchmark run). It clearly scopes the tool to the caller's own runs and distinguishes it from run-creation or submission siblings by emphasizing read-only access.
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 makes the usage context clear: use this to read status and scores for a run you already started. It does not explicitly name alternatives like benchmark_start_run or benchmark_finalize_run, but the read-only framing and ownership scoping effectively prevent confusion with sibling tools.
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.