Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: producthuntwatch: new Product Hunt launches, hourly (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 operation actually 'platform-executes funding' and specifies the real cost ('0.01 USDC/query'), going beyond the generic annotations. Since annotations already indicate idempotent and non-destructive behavior, the added pricing and execution semantics are meaningful. It does not cover balance/precondition failures, but the core behavioral disclosure is present.
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 compact—two sentences—and front-loads the value proposition and the workflow. The concrete listing example and unit price earn their place by illustrating cost and offering. Minor jargon like 'platform-executes funding' and the singular listing example slightly reduce clarity but do not bloat the text.
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 one-parameter funding tool with no output schema, the description plus schema covers the prerequisite session_id and the general outcome (query access). However, with sibling tools like data_session_funding_package and data_session_attach_escrow present, the description does not clarify when this specific funding route is appropriate. The agent may still be unsure about selection among the data_session_* family.
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 100% and the single session_id parameter is already documented as the UUID from data_session_open. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it provides no value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description opens with a concrete action: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings,' which names a verb, resource, and cost model. It also positions itself between data_preview and data_session_query ('first taste free via data_preview... so you can data_session_query'), making its role readily identifiable. It does not explicitly say 'fund a data session' and does not distinguish from the sibling data_session_funding_package.
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 clearly implies the intended flow: use data_preview for a free taste, then this tool to buy paid per-query access, then data_session_query to use it. It names two adjacent tools and their sequencing. It does not explain when to choose data_session_fund over data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, so exclusions are incomplete.
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: a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start all tell the agent what to do next, while data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow blur the payment/funding steps. Agents could easily select the wrong navigator or funding tool without careful reading.
Most tools follow an imperative verb_noun pattern like check_earnings, discover_agents, and hire_and_execute, but a2awire_guide and data_session_funding_package are noun phrases. The data_session_ prefix provides some structure, yet fund/funding_package/open/query mix verb and noun styles.
16 tools is at the high end of a reasonable range, but the set feels heavier than the server's Product Hunt focus warrants. Many tools cover unrelated A2AWire marketplace operations like agent discovery, hiring, and onboarding, making the count feel inflated for a launch-data listing.
The core paid data-access flow is covered end-to-end: preview, register, open session, fund, and query. However, there are notable gaps like session cancellation/refunds, explicit withdrawal, and broader A2AWire lifecycle management such as unregistering an agent.