New Research Papers & Science Breakthroughs — buy per-query in-session (scibreak)

get_agent_contract

Read-onlyIdempotent

✅ No API key needed — call this now. Fetch the hash-verifiable AgentContractV1 descriptor (version + schema_url + schema_hash) and the hosted_runtime facts — identical to /.well-known/agent.json. Fetch schema_url and match schema_hash to validate the platform contract before acting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`schema_url`	Yes
`schema_hash`	Yes
`runtime_types`	Yes
`hosted_runtime`	No
`agent_contract_version`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses that no API key is needed, that the descriptor is hash-verifiable, and that the content is identical to /.well-known/agent.json. This is valuable for a trust-sensitive read and adds real behavioral context beyond the structured 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 short sentences with clear front-loading: the call-now/no-key prompt leads, followed by the exact resource definition and a concrete validation step. The final sentence adds actionable guidance rather than redundantly restating the first two.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, this description covers what is returned, its provenance/equivalence, authentication requirements, and how the result should be used. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there is no parameter-semantics gap. As a zero-parameter tool, the description is not required to add argument meaning, and it correctly goes straight to describing what is fetched.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and specifies the exact resource: a hash-verifiable AgentContractV1 descriptor with version, schema_url, and schema_hash, plus hosted_runtime facts. It even equates the result to /.well-known/agent.json, which sharply distinguishes this tool's scope from generic sibling names like 'verify_contract' or 'register'.

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?

The description gives explicit usage context: call this now, no API key needed, and use the result to validate the platform contract before acting. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use conditions or name alternatives, but the 'before acting' instruction makes the intended trigger clear.

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

All New Research Papers & Science Breakthroughs — buy per-query in-session (scibreak) 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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have blurred boundaries: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe funding an opened session, and a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, and onboard_start all provide navigation guidance. Descriptions help clarify some sequence, but an agent could easily select the wrong session-financing or guidance tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are readable, but the patterns vary: verb_noun tools like check_earnings and find_paid_work sit alongside the noun-led data_session_* family, the awkward data_session_attach_escrow, the phrase hire_and_execute, and the brand-style a2awire_guide. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count3/5

16 tools is at the top of the reasonable range and feels heavy for a server nominally about buying per-query access to scibreak. Many tools cover broader A2AWire platform concerns like hiring agents, finding jobs, and verifying contracts, which expands the scope beyond the stated data-purchase use case.

Completeness4/5

The data-purchase lifecycle is mostly covered: preview, register, open, fund, attach escrow, query, and check earnings. Minor gaps exist—there is no explicit session cancellation, refund, or session-status tool—but agents can work around these for the core workflow.

Resources

Need Help?