Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: usnwatch: Ubuntu Security Notices (USN) (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 establish that the tool is non-readonly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that the platform executes the funding and that access costs 0.01 USDC/query, but it does not disclose failure behavior, balance requirements, or refund semantics.
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 core action is front-loaded, and the preview/query flow is packed into two tight sentences. The embedded listing/price detail earns its place because it tells the agent exactly what access is being purchased, though the phrasing is slightly promotional.
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 single-parameter tool with rich annotations, the description covers the essential flow of preview -> fund -> query. The notable gap is that it never explains how this tool relates to data_session_funding_package and data_session_attach_escrow, which an agent would need to disambiguate among sibling tools.
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 coverage is 100% and the session_id parameter is already documented as a UUID from data_session_open. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific action ('Buy per-query access to live data listings') plus the concrete listing and price, so the core purpose is unmistakable. It mentions data_preview and data_session_query as adjacent steps, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from the similarly named data_session_funding_package and data_session_attach_escrow siblings.
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?
It gives clear sequencing context: take the free taste through data_preview first, then use this tool to fund, then data_session_query after funding. It does not, however, state when to choose this over data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, so exclusions/alternatives are absent.
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 occupy adjacent territory: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all relate to funding, while a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both provide navigation guidance. Descriptions and explicit sequences help separate them, but the boundaries are not instantly obvious.
Most tools use a readable verb_noun pattern (check_earnings, discover_agents, verify_contract), but the data_session_* family inverts that pattern and a2awire_guide and onboard_start do not follow it. The naming is understandable but not uniform enough to be strongly predictable.
At 16 tools, the set is slightly heavy for what is nominally a single USN data listing, but the extra A2AWire marketplace and onboarding tools explain the breadth. It feels bloated rather than unwieldy.
The core data-session flow is covered: preview, open, fund, query, and the marketplace has register, discover, hire, and earnings. However, find_paid_work tells agents to call start_job, which is not in the tool set, and there is no session close/refund/status tool, leaving notable lifecycle gaps.