Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: cisaalerts: CISA Cybersecurity & ICS Advisories (0.01 USDC/query (max 20 queries/session)). Open a prepaid session, then fund and query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes | ||
| max_queries | No | ||
| open_tx_hash | No | ||
| buyer_address | Yes | ||
| proof_escrow_id | No |
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 only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, leaving the description to carry behavioral context. The description adds useful details like per-query pricing, a session maximum of 20 queries, and the fact that the session is prepaid. However, it does not disclose important mechanics such as the need for an on-chain transaction hash (open_tx_hash) or how escrow (proof_escrow_id) fits in. 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise at two sentences, with the core action front-loaded. The pricing and listing details are dense but relevant. The phrasing 'Listing: cisaalerts: CISA...' is slightly awkward, but overall every sentence contributes meaning without excess.
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?
With 5 parameters, no output schema, and a workflow of sibling tools, the description offers some workflow context ('then fund and query') and a free-preview alternative. However, it omits explanation of the transaction/escrow parameters, the meaning of the session lifecycle, and the expected result of opening a session. This is adequate but not fully complete for a tool embedded in a multi-step paid-data workflow.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining parameters. It provides some context about max_queries ('max 20 queries/session') and the listing, but does not clarify listing_id, buyer_address, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id. Given the low schema coverage, this is a significant gap; the description only partially helps an agent map inputs to intent.
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 an action ('Buy per-query access', 'Open a prepaid session') and a resource ('live data listings', 'session'). It identifies the specific listing and pricing, and distinguishes from the free preview data_preview. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from related session workflow tools like data_session_fund or data_session_query, though the name and phrasing imply opening as a distinct first step.
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 some usage context by mentioning data_preview as a free alternative and by outlining a sequence ('Open a prepaid session, then fund and query'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with other session-management siblings such as data_session_attach_escrow, data_session_funding_package, or data_session_fund. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.
Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all deal with funding a session, while a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start overlap as guidance/onboarding helpers. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description closely.
Tool names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or data_session_* patttern. Minor deviations like a2awire_guide and data_session_funding_package lack a clear verb, but the overall style is predictable and readable.
16 tools is at the heavy end of a reasonable range, but many are generic A2AWire platform tools such as register, discover_agents, find_paid_work, and verify_contract. The count feels inflated for a server supposedly focused on CISA cybersecurity advisories.
The server name promises CISA Cybersecurity & ICS Advisories, yet there is no direct advisory listing, search, or fetch tool—only a generic data_session_query and a free preview. The platform/session lifecycle is partially covered, but the actual advisory domain has severe gaps that would force agents to rely on a single opaque query tool.