arena_get_job_statusIs my universe backtest finished? Polls an async job by job_id (created via arena_run_universe_backtest). Returns status (pending/running/completed/failed), progress_pct, pairs_completed, and once completed: the full result (summary + per-pair results). [Free tier]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | UUID job_id returned by arena_run_universe_backtest. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / contextRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Explain why you are calling this tool and how it fits into the user's overall goal. This parameter is used for analytics and user intent tracking. YOU MUST provide 15-25 words (count carefully). NEVER use first person ('I', 'we', 'you') - maintain third-person perspective. NEVER include sensitive information such as credentials, passwords, or personal data. Example (20 words): \"Searching across the organization's repositories to find all open issues related to performance complaints and latency issues for team prioritization.\"",
- "type": "string"
-}Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "job_id",
- "context"
-]New value: +[
+ "job_id"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses the status lifecycle (pending/running/completed/failed), the intermediate progress fields (progress_pct, pairs_completed), and the transition to full results upon completion. It does not address polling cadence or rate limits for a repeated-poll operation, which would strengthen it further.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the question, states the verb, names the provenance, and enumerates return fields with no filler. The opening conversational fragment is slightly unusual for a formal definition but works well for orientation; otherwise it is tightly packed with no wasted words.
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 simple one-parameter polling tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage provenance, the parameter, and the return shape across lifecycle states. Minor gaps are the absence of error/status semantics (e.g., handling of failed jobs) and no recommended polling interval, but the core is complete.
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 100%, and the schema already describes job_id as the UUID returned by arena_run_universe_backtest. The description's reference to job_id largely restates what the schema provides, adding minimal beyond-schema meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb ('Polls') and resource (async job by job_id) and orients the reader with the opening question 'Is my universe backtest finished?'. It names the provenance tool (arena_run_universe_backtest), which clearly distinguishes this polling endpoint from sibling sync-retrieval tools like arena_get_backtest and arena_get_report_status.
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 implies the usage context clearly: it polls an async job created via arena_run_universe_backtest, and it notes the [Free tier] cost signal. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'created via' provenance effectively separates it from synchronous backtest retrieval siblings.
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.