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 (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?
Annotations already establish the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: per-query billing at 0.01 USDC/query and the prepaid session model. However, it introduces an inconsistency — description says 'max 20 queries/session' while the schema permits max_queries up to 50 — and it omits whether opening requires a prior on-chain transaction, which the open_tx_hash parameter suggests.
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 two compact sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The pricing parenthetical is arguably listing metadata, but it earns its place as behavioral context. No tautology or 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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It doesn't reveal what a successful open returns (presumably a session identifier), how open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id relate to the session lifecycle, or what constraints buyer_address must satisfy. An agent would struggle to invoke this correctly in the multi-step data_session_* workflow.
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, and it only partially does. It clarifies the listing concept and the query-cap idea, but it never explains buyer_address, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id — leaving three of five parameters effectively undocumented for an agent that needs to populate them. This is a significant gap at 0% coverage.
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 concrete action — 'Open a prepaid session' for 'per-query access to live data listings' — and even names the specific listing (producthuntwatch) with pricing. It also distinguishes itself from data_preview explicitly ('first taste free via data_preview'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the adjacent lifecycle siblings data_session_attach_escrow, data_session_fund, and data_session_query; 'then fund and query' hints at the split but doesn't name them.
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 real guidance to use data_preview first for free access, which is an explicit pointer to an alternative. It also sketches the session workflow ('Open a prepaid session, then fund and query'), implying this tool is the first paid step. But it never states when NOT to use this tool or names the follow-up siblings, leaving ambiguity about whether this or data_session_fund is the correct money-handling step.
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.