Read per-second throughput history for a venue, with up to 3,600 points in a ring buffer. Public access—no credentials required.
Get the venue's per-second throughput history (ring buffer, up to 3600 points). Public — no credentials needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully reveals that the endpoint is public and requires no credentials, and that data is stored in a ring buffer capped at 3600 points. It does not state rate limits, exact return shape, or explicitly confirm read-only safety, so it is not fully exhaustive.
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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the most relevant operational details (retention limit, public access). Every sentence earns its place.
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?
Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies enough context to call it confidently: what it returns, the history depth, and that no authentication is needed. It could be slightly more complete by specifying the throughput unit or time window, but it is largely sufficient for a simple read endpoint.
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 no input schema fields, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and the description appropriately avoids inventing or misrepresenting parameters.
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 and resource: 'Get the venue's per-second throughput history'. It is clear what data is returned and includes scope details (ring buffer, up to 3600 points). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like fetch_stats or get_stats_history, so it stops 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?
The description implies usage by saying it returns throughput history and notes 'Public — no credentials needed', which helps an agent understand access requirements. However, it offers no explicit direction on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as fetch_stats or get_stats_history, leaving comparison to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.