Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: msrcwatch: Microsoft MSRC Security Updates (0.01 USDC/query (max 20 queries/session)). Open a prepaid session, then fund and query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| listing_id | Yes | ||
| max_queries | No | ||
| open_tx_hash | No | ||
| buyer_address | Yes | ||
| proof_escrow_id | No |
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?
The description indicates a paid action ('Buy', 'Open a prepaid session'), which aligns with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. But it does not disclose side effects like whether a blockchain transaction is required (though open_tx_hash parameter suggests so) or that a session resource will be created. Annotations already provide basic safety info, so no contradiction, but additional context would help.
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 short and readable, packed with key information about pricing and listing. It loses a point due to including promotional language ('first taste free') that is not strictly necessary, but overall it is well-structured.
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?
There is no output schema or mention of what the tool returns, such as a session ID or next steps. It does say 'then fund and query', which helps, but leaves out important context around the optional parameters and how the session is used with 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?
The schema has no parameter descriptions, and the description does not compensate. buyer_address, open_tx_hash, and proof_escrow_id are entirely unexplained. Only listing_id and max_queries are hinted at through the listing mention and 'max 20 queries/session'.
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 tool opens a prepaid session for buying per-query access to a specific data listing, using the verb 'open' and identifying the listing. It also differentiates from data_preview by implying that tool is for a free first taste. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the session creation as a distinct object.
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 some guidance by mentioning data_preview for free access and instructing to 'then fund and query' after opening. However, it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus data_session_attach_escrow or data_session_fund, leaving some ambiguity.
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.