Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: msrcwatch: Microsoft MSRC Security Updates (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 readOnlyHint=false (mutation), idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that funding is 'platform-executed' and that it enables subsequent queries, but it does not disclose side effects like charging or account state changes beyond what idempotency implies. It provides some context but not rich behavioral detail beyond the annotations.
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 two sentences and front-loads the core action ('Buy per-query access'). The inclusion of a specific listing example is somewhat marketing-like but still concise and informative. No wasted words, and the key flow (preview → fund → query) is conveyed efficiently.
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 one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: it explains what the tool does, the specific listing, the free preview alternative, and the expected outcome (session becomes queryable). It does not detail the return value, but that is not strictly necessary given the tool's simplicity and the flow described.
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 parameter (session_id) is fully described in the schema (UUID from data_session_open), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Buy per-query access to live data listings'. It names a specific listing (msrcwatch) and distinguishes itself from the preview tool ('first taste free via data_preview') and the query tool ('so you can data_session_query'). This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiates it from 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?
The description provides a usage sequence: try the free preview first, then fund the session, then query. It explicitly names the alternative (data_preview) and the follow-up tool (data_session_query). However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow, which are sibling funding tools, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
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.
Multiple tools overlap heavily: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all seem to handle session funding, while discover_agents and find_paid_work serve nearly identical discovery purposes. a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action also both act as meta-navigation helpers, making it easy to select the wrong tool.
All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (check_earnings, discover_agents, register), some are noun phrases (data_session_funding_package, a2awire_guide), and prefixes like data_session_ are used only partially. This makes the naming feel ad hoc rather than systematic.
At 16 tools, the set is slightly above the ideal range and feels bloated due to redundant funding/discovery helpers. Condensing the overlapping session-funding and discovery tools would make the count more appropriate for the apparent workflow.
The core workflow of onboarding, funding, querying, and earning is covered, but the server name implies Microsoft Windows Security Updates content, and no tool clearly exposes update bulletins beyond the generic data_session_query. The toolset seems more oriented to a generic A2AWire marketplace than to the named MSRC CVRF domain.