arena_list_onchain_seriesWhich on-chain series are available? Lists all 62 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 provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool is a read-only catalog listing all 62 series, which groups are covered, what fields are returned, and that it is free tier. This is sufficient for a parameterless list tool, though it omits details like whether results are ordered or static.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core question and answer. The example list is informative rather than padding, and the downstream usage note is valuable. The opening question is mildly redundant with the title but serves as a useful semantic signal for agents.
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 parameterless, schema-less list tool, the description is complete: it specifies the number of items, the grouping taxonomy, representative examples, the output fields, and the follow-up tools that accept the returned id. Nothing an agent needs to successfully call or use this tool 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 has zero parameters and the schema confirms this, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed; an agent can invoke the tool without ambiguity.
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 ('Lists') and a specific resource ('all 62 available Bitcoin Research Kit on-chain series'), enumerates the groups, and names example series like MVRV, NUPL, and SOPR. It also states the exact return shape (id + label + group), which clearly distinguishes it from the many other arena_list_* sibling tools.
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?
It opens with a natural-language trigger question ('Which on-chain series are available?') and tells the agent to use the returned id with arena_get_onchain_latest / _history, giving clear downstream context. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling list tools, but the resource specificity makes the intended use unambiguous.
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.