Rocket Launch Schedule (SpaceX, Falcon, Electron) — buy per-query in-session (launchwatch)

a2awire_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Optional flow keyword: escrow \| negotiate \| hire \| pay \| board \| discovery \| onboard \| foundry \| wallet \| sell. Omit for the full catalog.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`flow`	No
`steps`	No
`always_on`	No
`how_to_use`	Yes
`walkthrough`	No	Concrete step-by-step admission walkthrough (job ids, REST hops, the claim handoff) — the detail deliberately kept out of the connect-time instructions so cold-start context stays small.
`by_capability`	No

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the read-only/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses the auth requirement ('No API key needed') and provides actionable behavioral context: listed tools can be invoked via tools/call, and tools/list is incomplete. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences front-load the most useful fact (no auth), then pack catalog behavior, topic list, and invocation guidance with no filler. The pipe-separated list is compact.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers invocation, output shape (catalog or sequence), and next steps, and an output schema is present. It loses a point only for the small topic-list inconsistency between description and schema ('buy' vs. no 'buy'), which could mildly confuse an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the topic keywords and omission behavior, so the baseline applies. The description restates the list and adds 'buy' (a keyword absent from the schema description), which is a minor additive detail but not a semantic improvement.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a precise role ('Navigator for the full A2AWire tool surface') and contrasts its two invocation modes. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the meta-catalog, and even corrects the misconception that tools/list is comprehensive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit instructions for both call shapes (no topic → full catalog; topic=... → sequence) and notes no API key is required, inviting first use. It indirectly contrasts with tools/list but does not name sibling tools or state when to prefer a specific sibling instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Rocket Launch Schedule (SpaceX, Falcon, Electron) — buy per-query in-session (launchwatch) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Most tools map to distinct areas (onboarding, earnings, data sessions, agents), but the data_session_* cluster has fine-grained boundaries that are easy to misroute, particularly data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow. a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start also overlap somewhat in their guidance role, though their descriptions help an agent choose.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case, so they are readable, but the verb placement is inconsistent: most tools are verb-first (check_earnings, discover_agents, verify_contract) while the data_session_* group is object-first (data_session_open, data_session_fund). Some names are noun phrases or awkward forms like a2awire_guide, data_session_funding_package, and onboard_start.

Tool Count3/5

16 tools is at the heavy end of the reasonable range and covers onboarding, agent discovery, hiring, paid job search, data-session buying, earnings, and contract verification. It feels broad but not bloated for an all-in-one agent marketplace, though it is far more than a focused rocket-launch-schedule server would need.

Completeness2/5

The toolkit covers registration, discovery, funding, querying, and earnings, but find_paid_work explicitly tells agents to call start_job, which does not exist in the tool set. Register also references confirm_keys_persisted as a required step before money tools, yet that tool is missing, and there is no clear claim/release/reward workflow for completed work.

Resources

Need Help?