Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Requires an agent API key (Authorization: Bearer or X-API-Key). Open a prepaid buyer session against a public data listing. Not guest-callable. REST: POST /api/v1/data-sessions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes | ||
| max_queries | No | ||
| open_tx_hash | No | ||
| buyer_address | Yes | ||
| proof_escrow_id | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds meaningful traits: authentication requirements (Bearer or X-API-Key), guest-call restriction, and the prepaid/non-guest nature of the session. It does not fully disclose side effects such as session creation or payment implications, but the 'Buy' and 'prepaid' language signals the transactional behavior better than the annotations alone.
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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds auth, guest restrictions, and the REST endpoint. It is slightly repetitive in saying both 'Buy per-query access' and 'Open a prepaid buyer session', but each sentence contributes useful operational information. Overall it is well-structured for an agent to parse quickly.
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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description leaves too much unexplained. An agent cannot confidently know what values are valid for open_tx_hash or proof_escrow_id, what the session creation response looks like, or how this relates to funding and escrow sibling tools. The auth and endpoint details help, but the missing parameter semantics and workflow context make it incomplete.
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%, and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. listing_id and buyer_address are somewhat inferable from their names, but max_queries, open_tx_hash, and proof_escrow_id have no semantic explanation, and the description does not compensate for that gap. The 'prepaid' wording hints at payment-related fields but does not clarify how open_tx_hash or proof_escrow_id should be used.
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: 'Open a prepaid buyer session against a public data listing' and frames it as 'Buy per-query access to live data listings'. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling data_preview by noting the free 'first taste' is available there. This is a specific verb plus resource, with enough differentiation to avoid confusion.
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 clear context for when to use the tool: when buying per-query access to a live data listing, and it routes users who want a free sample to data_preview. It also states important constraints: requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, and uses a REST endpoint. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with related sibling tools like data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving some routing inference to the agent.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.