Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: nasaiotd: NASA Image of the Day (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?
Annotations indicate no destructive effects and idempotent behavior. The description adds that it 'Platform-executes funding', implying a financial transaction, but does not detail side effects like balance deduction or confirmation. It is consistent with annotations but adds limited behavioral insight beyond them.
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 (~30 words), front-loads the core action (buy per-query access), and flows logically from offer to specific listing to execution. Every sentence adds relevant information without redundancy.
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 no output schema, the description is complete: it explains the purpose, cost, and relationship to sibling tools (data_preview, data_session_query). It does not cover error handling or return values, but those are not required given the minimal interface.
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 already covers session_id with a clear description ('UUID of a data session you opened from data_session_open'). The tool description does not add any further parameter-specific context, so it contributes no extra value beyond the schema.
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 the action (buy/fund per-query access), the specific resource (data session for NASA Image of the Day), and the price (0.01 USDC/query). It differentiates from data_preview (free taste) and data_session_query (subsequent use), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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 implicit usage guidance: use data_preview for a free trial, then fund via this tool before querying. It does not explicitly contrast with other funding tools (e.g., data_session_attach_escrow), but the sequence and free-trial hint are sufficient for basic guidance.
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 overlapping roles: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all handle payment for the same data listing, while a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both provide navigation guidance. Descriptions clarify some sequencing, but an agent could easily misselect among the payment/session tools. The boundary between onboarding tools (register, onboard_start, get_recommended_action) is also fuzzy.
Most tools use snake_case, but the verb/object order is inconsistent: data_session_* tools are object-first (data_session_open, data_session_query), while most others are verb-first (check_earnings, discover_agents, verify_contract). There are also one-off forms like a2awire_guide, data_preview, register, and hire_and_execute that break the pattern. The naming is readable but not predictable.
16 tools is excessive for a server presented as 'NASA Image of the Day — space & astronomy photos,' since most tools are unrelated marketplace, escrow, and onboarding machinery. Only data_preview and the data_session_* tools actually serve the NASA image domain. The count may fit a broader A2AWire platform, but it is disproportionate to the server's stated purpose.
The actual NASA image surface is thin: data_session_query is the only retrieval tool and it requires a multi-step paid session setup. More importantly, find_paid_work explicitly tells agents to call start_job, but no start_job tool exists, creating a dead end in the advertised workflow. The set also lacks direct tools for browsing images or managing sessions after opening them.