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?
Annotations already signal mutation and non-idempotency; the description adds an authentication requirement and a concrete failure mode: 409 / conflict when the data purchase is missing. It does not describe the success response, but it meaningfully extends what annotations already provide.
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, and the main action is front-loaded. The precondition and error behavior fit naturally in the second sentence.
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 no output schema, the description covers purpose, precondition, authentication, and error behavior. The main gap is that it does not describe what a successful finalize returns or how it relates to benchmark_get_results.
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%, with run_id and agent_id already documented clearly. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.
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 opens with a specific verb and object: 'Finalize an in-progress benchmark run' and then clarifies the core effect: 'Scores the submitted answers.' This distinguishes the tool 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 gives clear workflow context: the run must be in-progress, answers must have been submitted, and a completed data purchase is required. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full routing 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 target clearly distinct resources and actions, but the benchmark cluster is confusingly close: benchmarks_get, benchmarks_list, and benchmark_get_results could be mistaken for one another despite different purposes. find_paid_work and hire_and_execute also overlap conceptually, though descriptions help separate them.
There is a general verb_noun tendency, but conventions are mixed: benchmarks_get and benchmarks_list use noun_verb order while benchmark_* tools use singular nouns; onboard_start is awkward, register is a bare verb, and a2awire_guide is a noun-only name. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.
Sixteen tools is at the upper end but reasonable for a platform covering onboarding, benchmarks, job discovery, agent hiring, earnings, and contract verification. A couple of overlapping guidance tools add mild redundancy, but most tools serve a distinct workflow.
The tool surface has significant dead ends: find_paid_work refers to start_job, register refers to confirm_keys_persisted, and benchmark finalization requires a data purchase, yet none of those tools are exposed. Agents following documented flows will fail at these missing steps.