Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: exploitdb: Exploit-DB — New Public Exploits & PoCs (0.01 USDC/query). Platform-executes funding so you can data_session_query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| session_id | Yes | UUID of a data session you opened (from data_session_open). |
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?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: per-query cost (0.01 USDC/query), the specific listing being funded, and that funding is platform-executed before querying is possible. The annotations already cover idempotency and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to repeat those. It does not detail what happens to funds on repeated calls, but this is acceptable given the idempotentHint.
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 three short sentences and front-loads the primary purpose. The listing-specific sentence is somewhat tangential for a general funding tool, but it provides concrete pricing and data-source context that helps an agent understand the transaction.
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 single-parameter tool with a well-described schema and informative annotations, the description covers purpose, cost, and the surrounding workflow (preview → fund → query). The main gap is not explicitly differentiating from sibling tools like data_session_funding_package and data_session_attach_escrow, but the per-query language makes the intended use reasonably clear.
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?
The schema fully documents the single parameter session_id, including that it is a UUID from data_session_open. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with 100% schema coverage the schema carries the burden. This is a baseline-3 situation: no additional semantics are needed from the description.
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 states a clear action — buying per-query access to live data listings — and names the specific listing (Exploit-DB) and price. It also references the downstream data_session_query tool, which helps distinguish this as a funding step rather than a query or preview. It could be slightly clearer that the funded entity is an existing data session, but the tool name and schema fill that gap.
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 a practical workflow: use data_preview for a free first taste, then this tool to buy per-query access, then data_session_query to actually query. This provides clear context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly distinguish from the similar-looking data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow siblings, so the guidance is not exhaustive.
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 overlap in purpose: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern funding/escrow; a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start all provide guidance/state; and discover_agents, find_paid_work, and hire_and_execute all point at marketplace hiring. Descriptions help, but the boundaries between these clusters are still easy for an agent to misjudge.
Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern such as data_session_open, discover_agents, and verify_contract. There are minor deviations like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and register, but the overall convention is fairly consistent.
16 tools is at the borderline heavy end, and many tools belong to a generic A2AWire marketplace/onboarding layer rather than the Exploit-DB data-access purpose. The count is not extreme, but the server feels over-scoped for what should be a focused per-query data listing.
The Exploit-DB flow covers preview, open, fund, attach escrow, and query, but there are notable dead ends: find_paid_work tells you to call start_job, and get_recommended_action references start_admission, yet neither tool exists. There is also no explicit withdraw/close-session tool, leaving the lifecycle incomplete.