Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: rustsecwatch: RustSec Crate Security Advisories (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?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the cost and the specific listing, plus the fact that funding enables querying, which is useful beyond the annotations. It does not disclose side effects like fund transfers, but the annotations cover the safety profile; this is adequate for a one-parameter tool.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the description efficiently conveys the listing, cost, and relationship to preview and query tools. Every sentence earns its place.
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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, cost, and how it fits with data_preview and data_session_query. It could mention the need for an existing session (though the schema does) or the sandbox context (from the title), but overall it's complete enough for an agent to decide and call it correctly.
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?
The input schema describes the only parameter (session_id) with full coverage (100%), including its purpose. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states a specific action ('Buy per-query access to live data listings'), names the exact listing (rustsecwatch), the cost (0.01 USDC/query), and clarifies that it enables data_session_query. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like data_preview (free preview) and data_session_query (the actual query).
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 mentions the free alternative (data_preview) and states the outcome of funding (you can data_session_query), giving clear context for when to use this tool. However, it doesn't explicitly address when not to use it or compare with other funding tools like data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, though the 'per-query' phrasing implies a distinction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.