Retrieve a venue's per-second throughput history from a ring buffer, up to 3600 points. Deprecated: use fetch_stats_history; public access requires no credentials.
Deprecated: use fetch_stats_history. 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.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does well: it states the data shape (per-second throughput, ring buffer capped at 3600 points) and the auth profile ('Public — no credentials needed'). It stops short of return-format or rate-limit detail, but for a read-only public stats endpoint that gap is minor.
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 sentences with the most decision-relevant fact (deprecation) front-loaded, followed by what it returns and its auth profile. Nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by characterizing the returned data (per-second throughput history, ring buffer, up to 3600 points) and confirming no credentials are needed. Nothing an agent needs to call this zero-param tool correctly 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, so there is no per-parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is required.
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 ('Get the venue's per-second throughput history') and adds scoping detail (ring buffer, up to 3600 points). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_stats via the 'history' framing and names its own replacement, so an agent can tell it apart from related stat tools without opening schemas.
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?
Opens with 'Deprecated: use `fetch_stats_history`', which is an explicit when-not-to-use plus a named alternative. This is exactly the routing an agent needs to avoid calling a deprecated endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.