Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: ghsawatch: package dependency vulnerabilities + malicious-package advisories (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 provide little signal (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful context: this is a paid action with 0.01 USDC/query and a 20-query/session cap. But it doesn't disclose return behavior, on-chain transaction effects, or what happens to funds if the session isn't used.
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 front-loaded with the key commercial context, then the listing specifics, then the workflow instruction. It avoids repeating schema fields and has no significant filler, though the final imperative could be more API-like.
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 no output schema, sparse annotations, and 5 parameters, the description is not complete enough for a reliable call. Required buyer_address is undocumented, optional open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id are not explained, and there is no indication of what a successful open returns or what next step is needed beyond generic 'fund and query'.
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 must compensate for 5 parameters. It conveys the listing concept and max queries/session, but leaves buyer_address, open_tx_hash, proof_escrow_id, and the exact listing_id value largely unexplained. That is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 names a concrete action ('Open a prepaid session') and a specific resource (the ghsawatch data listing), and it positions the tool relative to data_preview, fund, and query. However, it opens with 'Buy per-query access' and later says 'then fund and query,' which slightly blurs whether this call itself executes payment or just opens the session.
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?
Provides clear workflow context: try the free data_preview first, then open a session, then fund and query. It doesn't explicitly say when-not-to-use this versus every data_session_* sibling, but the sequence is clear enough to guide an agent to the right step.
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 in purpose: data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, and data_session_attach_escrow all describe payment/funding steps, while a2awire_guide and get_recommended_action both provide guidance. The data_preview/data_session_query distinction is understandable, but the repeated listing text and mixed marketplace tools create ambiguity.
Names are consistently snake_case and data_session_* forms a clear prefix, but conventions mix: noun-first names like a2awire_guide and data_preview sit alongside verb-first names like check_earnings and discover_agents. Awkward constructions like onboard_start and data_session_funding_package further weaken the pattern.
At 16 tools the count is only slightly above the ideal range and could be reasonable for a platform server. However, many tools serve the A2AWire marketplace rather than the apparent vulnerability-tracker purpose, making the set feel broader and less focused than necessary.
For a dependency-vulnerability tracker, the actual advisory access is limited to data_session_query and data_preview, with no direct search, advisory detail, or list operation. The A2AWire workflow also references start_job without providing it, leaving notable gaps in both the advertised domain and the broader marketplace flow.