Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: ghtrend: fast-growing new GitHub repositories (0.01 USDC/query). Returns fund instructions after data_session_open.
| 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 cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context: the tool returns fund instructions, discloses the cost per query, and ties the operation to an existing session. The word 'Buy' is slightly loose since the tool only returns instructions, but it is not a full contradiction.
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 tight sentences front-load the core purpose, include the concrete pricing, name the relevant alternative, and state the output. Every clause carries useful information with no filler.
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 one-parameter tool with strong annotations, this is mostly adequate. However, there is no output schema and the phrase 'fund instructions' is vague; the agent is not told the shape of the return value or which sibling tool should actually execute the funding.
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 single session_id parameter is already fully described in the schema as a UUID from data_session_open, and the description reinforces that same prerequisite. With 100% schema coverage, the description does not need to add more but also does not go beyond the 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 states a specific purpose ('Buy per-query access to live data listings'), identifies the exact listing (ghtrend), and differentiates itself from data_preview by noting the free sample. It also connects to data_session_open as the prerequisite, making the tool's role in the workflow clear.
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 useful context: call it after data_session_open, and use data_preview for a free taste first. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely named siblings data_session_fund or data_session_attach_escrow, leaving the agent to infer the full funding workflow.
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.
Several tools cluster around the same actions: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe paying for session access; a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both tell the agent what to do next; discover_agents and hire_and_execute both search by capability. Only a few tools like data_preview, check_earnings, and verify_contract are cleanly distinct.
All names use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or action pattern: data_preview and a2awire_guide are nouns, data_session_open is object+verb, data_session_funding_package is object+gerund+noun, and hire_and_execute is verb+verb. The fund/funding_package pair is especially confusing.
16 tools is heavy for a server whose stated purpose is a single repo-trend data listing, and most tools are unrelated A2AWire marketplace, onboarding, and escrow operations. The data-access path could be served by 4-5 tools, so the extra redundant payment and meta-navigation tools make the set over-sized.
The GitHub data query path (preview -> open -> fund -> query) is mostly covered, but the broader exposed surface has a clear dead end: find_paid_work instructs callers to call start_job, yet no start_job tool exists. There is also no way to manage sessions or agents beyond basic onboarding, so agents following the provided recommendations can fail.