Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: New MCP Server Directory (Agent Tools Index) (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 discloses that this is a paid action (0.01 USDC/query) and that the platform executes funding, which goes beyond the raw annotations. It does not contradict the idempotent or non-destructive hints.
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 short and front-loaded with the core purchase action, and the cost and follow-on query tool are included without fluff. The 'Listing:' fragment is a bit awkward but every sentence contributes useful context.
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 paid action the core details are present: cost, free preview alternative, and the resulting query capability. It is less complete regarding the escrow/funding-package siblings, failure behavior, and what platform-executed funding actually entails.
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 coverage for the single session_id parameter is 100%, and the schema already states it is the UUID returned by data_session_open. The description adds no new parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the action as buying per-query access to live data listings and names the related data_preview and data_session_query flow. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.
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 implies the intended order: try data_preview free, fund the session, then use data_session_query. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not explain how this differs from data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow.
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 data-session tools have unclear boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe different ways of funding or attaching payment, but an agent could easily pick the wrong one. a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action also overlap as navigation/recommendation tools, though their descriptions help somewhat.
Tool names mostly follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as register, discover_agents, find_paid_work, and check_earnings. Minor deviations like a2awire_guide and data_preview are noun-led, but the overall convention is predictable and readable.
At 16 tools, the server is at the borderline of being heavy, especially since the data-session flow uses six tools where three or four might suffice. The count is not chaotic, but the funding-related tools feel over-decomposed for the apparent scope.
The tool set covers onboarding, discovery, hiring, earnings, and data sessions, but find_paid_work explicitly instructs agents to 'call start_job with a job_id' and no start_job tool exists in the set. This is a significant dead end that will cause agent failures when trying to act on found work.