Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: cvewatch: CVE Security Advisories (NVD, High & Critical) (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?
Annotations only indicate that this is not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it is a paid purchase with pricing (0.01 USDC/query), a per-session query cap (max 20 queries/session), and a required follow-up flow (fund, then query). No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 starts with the core purpose. Some nesting in parentheticals makes it slightly dense, but each sentence contributes meaningful details like pricing, alternatives, and the required flow.
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?
With five parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description omits important operational details such as what open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id are for, what the tool returns, and what prerequisites a caller should satisfy before invoking it. It explains the business flow but not enough for fully correct invocation.
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 full burden for explaining parameters. It only hints at listing_id via the cvewatch example and mentions a session query cap, but it does not explain buyer_address, max_queries, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id. This leaves most parameters semantically unexplained.
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: buy per-query access and open a prepaid data session. It distinguishes itself from data_preview by explicitly offering that as a free alternative, and from fund/query siblings by saying 'Open a prepaid session, then fund and query.'
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 concrete usage context: use data_preview for a free first taste, use this tool to open a prepaid session, then fund and query afterward. It does not explicitly enumerate all sibling alternatives, but it clearly positions this tool as the entry point before funding and 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.
Several tools overlap in purpose: a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both provide guidance, while data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all concern payment setup with unclear boundaries. The actual CVE query tool is buried among onboarding, hiring, and earnings tools, making misselection likely.
Tool names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or data_session_* pattern, which is readable and predictable. Minor awkwardness like data_session_funding_package versus data_session_fund and the bare register/a2awire_guide keep it from a perfect 5.
Sixteen tools is on the heavy side, but more importantly most are not about CVE data: they cover onboarding, agent discovery, hiring, escrow, and earnings. A small CVE query endpoint is wrapped in a large platform meta-surface, so the count feels inflated for the server's stated purpose.
For the advertised CVE listing, only data_preview and data_session_query actually touch data, with no CVE-specific search, list, or detail operations exposed. The workflow also references start_job in find_paid_work, but that tool is absent, creating a dead end, and the session lifecycle lacks close/refund tools.