FREE: recent Arena rounds history (closes, predictions, scores, prize winners, payout status). Optional limit (default 10). For CSV use GET /v1/arena/history?format=csv.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "arena_history"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context by flagging the call as FREE (a cost trait no annotation captures) and by listing returned fields. It still omits pagination behavior, ordering, and how many rounds 'recent' covers, so it adds value but not rich behavioral depth.
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?
Three short, front-loaded clauses: purpose plus contents first, then the limit default, then the CSV alternative. No filler. The trailing GET /v1/arena/history URL is slightly out of register for a tool description but conveys useful format-switching 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?
For a single-parameter, read-only history fetch with no output schema, the description covers purpose, returned fields, cost, and the default limit — enough for correct invocation. The only real gap is the meaning and bounds of 'recent' and pagination depth, which are minor for this complexity level.
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% for the single limit parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does supply the default value (10), which the schema omits, but does not state that limit caps the number of rounds returned or mention the schema's maximum of 100, leaving the parameter only partially explained.
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 names a specific resource and scope ('recent Arena rounds history') and enumerates the payload contents (closes, predictions, scores, prize winners, payout status), so an agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with the close sibling arena_results or arena_current_round, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by 'recent ... history' and the optional limit, and the CSV note tells the agent how to get a non-JSON format. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to pick this over arena_results or arena_current_round, and no mention of pagination or how far back 'recent' reaches.
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.