arena_list_onchain_seriesWhich on-chain series are available? Lists all 71 available Bitcoin Research Kit (BRK) on-chain series across the groups pilot, sentiment, mining, supply, cointime, activity, liquidity (e.g. MVRV, NUPL, SOPR, Realized-Price, Mayer, Puell, STH/LTH SOPR, Hash-Ribbons). Returns id + label + group. Use the id with arena_get_onchain_latest / _history. [Free tier]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input 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 / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "context"
-]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the burden and does disclose useful traits: the exact return shape (id + label + group), the size of the set (71 series), and the tier ('[Free tier]'). It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or caching, but for a parameterless read-only catalog the residual risk is low.
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?
Front-loaded with the question it answers, then the payload and routing instructions. The parenthetical enumeration of eight series names is long but earns its place by improving semantic matching; the '[Free tier]' tag is a minor trailing fragment.
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 no-parameter, no-output-schema listing tool, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is returned, how many items, the grouping dimension, and which tools consume the ids. Nothing material is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema is an empty object, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly says nothing about inputs, adding no confusion.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Lists all 71 available Bitcoin Research Kit (BRK) on-chain series across the groups pilot, sentiment, mining...'), names the concrete payload (id + label + group), and enumerates example series so an agent can match it against questions about MVRV, NUPL, SOPR, etc. It is clearly distinct from the sibling getters arena_get_onchain_latest/_history, which it routes to.
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?
Explicitly tells the agent how to use the result: 'Use the id with arena_get_onchain_latest / _history', which is a real workflow instruction naming the downstream siblings. There is no explicit when-not or alternative listing tool it contrasts against, so it stops short of a 5.
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.