Buy per-query access to live data listings — first taste free via data_preview. Listing: launchwatch: Rocket Launch Schedule Index (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 convey readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: this is a paid operation with a specific price (0.01 USDC/query) and session limit (max 20 queries), and it is a purchase rather than a simple read. It does not mention auth or transaction requirements, but it adds useful cost and quota information beyond annotations.
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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a clear workflow. The embedded 'Listing: launchwatch...' pricing block is a bit listing-specific and could distract from the general open-session action, but overall it remains concise.
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 and sparse annotations, the description should provide more operational context. It does not explain what the tool returns, how buyer_address is used for payment, or what open_tx_hash and proof_escrow_id mean. An agent would still be uncertain about the full call sequence and required inputs.
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 explaining parameters. It only indirectly identifies listing_id via the launchwatch listing and hints at max_queries with 'max 20 queries/session'. Required buyer_address and optional open_tx_hash/proof_escrow_id are not explained at all, leaving a major gap for an agent trying to populate the inputs.
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's purpose: buying per-query access and opening a prepaid session. It distinguishes itself from data_preview by noting the free preview path, so an agent can tell which tool to start with.
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 a clear workflow: taste free via data_preview, then open a session, then fund and query. It names an alternative and orders the related sibling tools, though it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or discuss all alternative paths.
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.
Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but the data_session_* cluster (open, fund, funding_package, attach_escrow) has unclear boundaries, and a2awire_guide vs get_recommended_action both suggest next steps. Descriptions help resolve most ambiguity, so the set is workable but not crisp.
Nearly all tools follow a snake_case verb_noun or data_session_* pattern, which is predictable. Minor deviations like register, a2awire_guide, and data_session_funding_package (a noun rather than a verb) keep it from being a perfect 5.
16 tools for a narrow 'buy per-query rocket launch schedule' product is excessive; the majority are generic A2AWire onboarding, marketplace, and escrow tools rather than launch-schedule functionality. The core data product only needs roughly half this surface, so the set is not well-scoped to its stated purpose.
The data-purchase flow is mostly covered (preview, open, fund, query), but the toolset includes workflows with dead ends: find_paid_work tells agents to call start_job, which is not exposed, and data sessions have no status, close, or refund tool. These gaps will cause agent failures in the advertised A2AWire workflows.