Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Requires an agent API key (Authorization: Bearer or X-API-Key). Open a prepaid buyer session against a public data listing. Not guest-callable. REST: POST /api/v1/data-sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes | ||
| max_queries | No | ||
| open_tx_hash | No | ||
| buyer_address | Yes | ||
| proof_escrow_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal a mutating, non-idempotent operation (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the prepaid payment model, the agent API key requirement with both auth schemes, and the guest exclusion. No contradiction with the 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?
Five short sentences, front-loaded with core purpose and the sibling alternative before auth and endpoint details. The REST path is a useful operational addition. Only minor redundancy between 'Buy per-query access' and 'Open a prepaid buyer session,' with no real waste.
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?
Strong on auth, guest policy, alternative routing, and the raw POST path. However, with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the five parameters plus the relationship to session-funding/escrow siblings remain unexplained, so an agent would likely need to probe the API or inspect sibling schemas before a correct call.
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, but it only gestures at listing_id via 'data listing' and says nothing about buyer_address, max_queries, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id. An agent cannot determine value formats, constraints, or conditional requirements from either source.
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?
States a specific verb and resource — 'Open a prepaid buyer session against a public data listing' — and opens with 'Buy per-query access to live data listings,' which pins down the commercial model. Naming data_preview as the free alternative distinguishes it from the closest sibling without requiring the agent to open either schema.
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?
Explicitly routes free exploration to data_preview ('first taste free via data_preview') and excludes guests with 'Not guest-callable,' plus states the required auth mode. It does not disambiguate from session-lifecycle siblings like data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving some workflow ordering to inference.
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.
A few clusters could cause misselection: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all involve paying for data sessions, and both a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action provide next-step guidance. However, most tools target distinct resources and actions, and the detailed descriptions help resolve most ambiguity.
Names fall into two competing styles: verb-first commands like discover_agents/find_paid_work/get_agent_contract, and resource-first names like data_preview/data_session_open/data_session_funding_package. Within the data_session_* family, forms are inconsistent (fund vs funding_package vs attach_escrow), and a2awire_guide/onboard_start don't follow either pattern.
16 tools is at the borderline/heavy end but not unreasonable for a platform spanning onboarding, discovery, hiring, escrow, and data-session payments. The count feels inflated mainly because much of that scope is unrelated to the server's advertised CVE-advisory purpose.
The server name promises CVE Security Advisories from NVD, yet there is no CVE-specific search, list, get, or filter tool. The only query path is generic data_session_query, which could target any data listing, so an agent cannot reliably accomplish the server's core advertised workflow.