Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: npmwatch: New npm package releases & JavaScript dependency 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 cover the core behavioral profile: mutating, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds useful context that funding is platform-executed and metered at 0.01 USDC/query, but it does not explain the resulting state change, balance implications, or retry semantics beyond the annotation.
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 with the main purpose front-loaded and a clear connection to related tools. The embedded 'Listing: npmwatch' detail gives concrete pricing but is listing-specific, slightly reducing generalizability; overall it is efficient and not padded.
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 one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema and useful annotations, the description is mostly adequate: an agent can infer that the session_id must come from data_session_open and that funding enables data_session_query. However, it does not clarify how this tool relates to data_session_funding_package or what the result of a successful funding call looks like, especially with no output schema.
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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, session_id, explicitly noting it comes from data_session_open. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the full burden; baseline 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 verb ('Buy') and resource ('per-query access to live data listings'), and it clarifies that the tool executes funding so data_session_query can be used. However, it does not clearly differentiate data_session_fund from the similarly named sibling data_session_funding_package, so full sibling distinction is missing.
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 clear usage flow: try a free preview via data_preview, then fund the session for paid per-query access, enabling data_session_query. It offers some alternative guidance by pointing to data_preview, but it does not explicitly state when to use data_session_fund over data_session_funding_package or data_session_attach_escrow.
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 have overlapping guidance and discovery purposes: a2awire_guide, get_recommended_action, find_paid_work, discover_agents, and hire_and_execute all point toward finding/doing work. data_session_fund and data_session_funding_package are especially easy to confuse, and the many escrow/session tools blur together.
Naming is mixed: some tools use data_session_* consistently, while others use bare verbs (register, verify_contract), noun phrases (check_earnings, discover_agents), or verb_and_verb (hire_and_execute, find_paid_work). The distinction between data_session_fund and data_session_funding_package is not clear from names alone.
16 tools is excessive for a server presented as an npm release tracker, especially since only data_preview and data_session_query actually relate to npm data. Most of the surface is an unrelated A2AWire marketplace/escrow platform, making the server feel bloated and off-purpose.
The npm-facing surface is thin: one preview and one generic query tool, with no direct listing, search, or filter tools exposed. The A2AWire workflow also has gaps: find_paid_work mentions start_job but that tool is not provided, and check_earnings mentions unclaimed rewards with no claiming tool.