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?
Beyond the annotations (which only say non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds key behavioral facts: this is a paid/prepaid purchase, it requires authentication, it cannot be called as a guest, and it uses POST /api/v1/data-sessions. That is meaningful additional transparency for a mutating operation.
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: payment model, free alternative, authentication requirement, guest restriction, and REST endpoint are all in a few sentences with no filler. 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?
The tool has five parameters, no output schema, and no per-parameter docs. The description gives solid purpose and auth context, but it omits what the response is, how the optional fields relate to the session lifecycle, and what must happen next (e.g., funding or attaching escrow). For a complex 'open session' mutation, this is 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%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the five parameters. It says nothing about listing_id, buyer_address, max_queries, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id. Even though names hint at meaning, the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the raw JSON schema.
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 the business model: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings'. It differentiates from the sibling data_preview by explicitly pointing to it for a free taste, and it does not conflate itself with data_session_query or data_session_fund.
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 explicit usage context: it requires an agent API key, is not guest-callable, and names data_preview as the alternative for a free first look. It does not explicitly say when to use data_session_query or data_session_fund instead, but the purpose implies the caller should open a session before funding/querying.
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.
Data-session financing stages (data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, data_session_attach_escrow) overlap conceptually and could be misselected without careful reading. a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action also both serve as navigation helpers. Other tools are mostly distinct.
Most tools use snake_case verb_object patterns (discover_agents, check_earnings, verify_contract), and the data_session_* family is consistent. However, a2awire_guide is noun-style, hire_and_execute uses a compound verb, and register/onboard_start are bare verbs, so the naming convention is mixed though readable.
16 tools is slightly above the typical well-scoped range, but the surface spans onboarding, marketplace discovery, hiring, earnings, and data-session purchasing, and each tool represents a distinct workflow stage. It feels dense but not bloated.
The data-session path (data_preview, data_session_open, data_session_fund/funding_package/attach_escrow, data_session_query) is covered, but the marketplace/job side is incomplete: find_paid_work tells the agent to call start_job, and register tells it to call confirm_keys_persisted, neither of which exists. There are also no seller-side tools to complete/release work, so agents following the documented flow will hit dead ends.