Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: pypiwatch: New PyPI package releases & Python dependency 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?
Annotations already indicate a non-read-only mutation, and the description adds meaningful context: the session is prepaid, costs 0.01 USDC/query, and is capped at 20 queries/session. This goes beyond the structural annotation fields.
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 action and pricing, and it names the free alternative. A little dense, but every sentence contributes useful information.
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?
Given no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and five parameters, the description is not complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke the tool. It provides the high-level flow but omits required inputs, return behavior, and what happens after opening.
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 had to explain the parameters. It mentions the listing and session concept but does not clarify buyer_address, max_queries, open_tx_hash, or proof_escrow_id. With five parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
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 a specific action: open a prepaid session that buys per-query access, and distinguishes it from data_preview ('first taste free') and later lifecycle steps ('then fund and query'). It names the listing and pricing, so an agent understands exactly what this tool does.
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 clear context: use data_preview for a free taste, and use this tool to start a paid session, then fund and query. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or list all sibling alternatives, but the lifecycle is communicated well enough.
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 are near-duplicates in the data-session funding flow (data_session_fund, data_session_funding_package, data_session_attach_escrow) and guidance tools overlap (a2awire_guide vs get_recommended_action). A caller looking for PyPI release information cannot easily distinguish the relevant query tools from the marketplace and onboarding tools.
There is a data_session_* cluster and some get_* names, but the set mixes bare verbs (register), gerund-style names (check_earnings, find_paid_work), compound verbs (hire_and_execute), and prefixed nouns (a2awire_guide, onboard_start). The naming is not chaotic enough for 1, but it lacks a consistent convention.
16 tools is already on the heavy side, and the majority concern agent-marketplace onboarding, escrow, hiring, and earnings rather than PyPI package tracking. The count would be plausible for an A2AWire platform server, but it is far too large and unfocused for the advertised PyPI Release Tracker.
The stated purpose is tracking new PyPI releases and dependency updates, yet there are no dedicated tools for listing packages, fetching release details, or monitoring dependencies. The only data-related surface is a generic data_preview/data_session_query pair, leaving the actual domain essentially uncovered.