Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: ghmcp: new MCP servers on GitHub (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?
The annotations only provide sparse hints (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a paid operation with a concrete price (0.01 USDC/query), a session cap (max 20 queries/session), and a multi-step flow. It does not clarify whether a blockchain transaction is required or what happens if a session already exists.
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, purposeful sentences: purpose, listing/pricing details, and workflow. It is front-loaded with the most important information and contains no filler.
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 paid, stateful opening operation with no output schema, the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., a session ID needed for subsequent fund/query calls) and does not explain the optional transaction/escrow fields. The basic invocation path is clear, but these missing details prevent full completion of the call loop.
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. It gives one listing example ('ghmcp') and implies a query cap, but buyer_address, open_tx_hash, and proof_escrow_id are not explained at all. The 'ghmcp' value also does not obviously satisfy the schema's uuid format, and the stated 20-query cap does not align with the schema maximum of 50.
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 names a specific action ('Open a prepaid session') and a specific paid resource ('per-query access to live data listings'). It explicitly contrasts itself with data_preview and distinguishes the opening step from the later 'fund and query' steps, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling session/query tools.
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?
It gives clear context: use data_preview for a free first look, otherwise start paid access by opening a session; then fund and query. The workflow sequence is clear, but the exact sibling tools (data_session_fund, data_session_query) are only implied by verbs rather than named as explicit alternatives.
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 distinct lifecycle stages, but a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start all serve as orientation/next-step helpers and could be confused. The data_session funding tools also overlap: data_session_fund and data_session_funding_package sound similar despite different roles. Descriptions help, but the boundaries are not always crisp.
The majority of tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as check_earnings, discover_agents, and verify_contract. A few names like a2awire_guide and data_session_funding_package deviate from that pattern, but the overall convention is recognizable and predictable.
At 16 tools, this is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the count is justified by multiple workflows: data session purchasing, marketplace hiring, onboarding, and contract verification. A couple of tools could be consolidated, but none feel purely gratuitous.
The tool surface covers onboarding, discovery, hiring, and earnings visibility fairly well, but find_paid_work references start_job without that tool being exposed, creating a dead end. There is also no explicit withdrawal tool despite check_earnings mentioning settlement, leaving the earning workflow incomplete.