Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: CISA Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (kevwatch) (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 provide no real safety profile (all hints are false/absent), so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses pricing and session limits, but does not explain side effects like creating an on-chain session, requiring a transaction hash, or consuming funds. It also states 'max 20 queries/session' while the schema permits max_queries up to 50, creating uncertainty about actual behavior.
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 compact and front-loads the most important differentiator: pay-per-query access and free preview through data_preview. The workflow sentence is efficient, though 'prepaid' vs 'fund' is slightly muddled. No wasted words overall.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema and no meaningful annotations, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot determine what values to pass for listing_id or buyer_address, whether open_tx_hash is required, what the session object looks like, or how to interpret the return value. The pricing and listing info help, but critical invocation details are missing.
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 should explain the 5 parameters, but it does not. It mentions 'max 20 queries/session,' which loosely hints at max_queries, but conflicts with the schema maximum of 50. listing_id, buyer_address, open_tx_hash, and proof_escrow_id are left completely unexplained.
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 a specific action ('Buy per-query access', 'Open a prepaid session') and the resource ('live data listings', specifically the CISA KEV listing). It also differentiates from the free data_preview sibling and the later fund/query steps, so an agent can tell what this tool does.
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 workflow guidance: try free via data_preview, then open a prepaid session, then fund and query. This implicitly distinguishes this tool from data_preview, data_session_fund, and data_session_query. It does not explicitly mention other escrow/funding-package siblings, but the core usage path is clear.
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.
Several tools occupy hazy boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern session payment/funding, and a2awire_guide overlaps with get_recommended_action as a navigation/guidance tool. Agents may easily pick the wrong call without reading descriptions carefully.
Most names follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern such as data_session_open, find_paid_work, and verify_contract. Minor deviations like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and register keep it from being perfectly uniform, but the convention is generally predictable.
16 tools is at the heavy edge of a normal surface, and many of the tools are generic A2AWire marketplace helpers rather than KEV-specific functionality. A dedicated KEV server would feel tighter with fewer, but the count is not extreme.
The set describes a wider marketplace but omits a referenced start_job tool, creating a dead end after find_paid_work. It also lacks any direct KEV query/metadata/session-status tool beyond the payment/session flow, so agents cannot fully complete the advertised workflows.