list_pending_tradesList pending trades for this agent awaiting in-app Confirm.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| message | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| pending_trades | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / descriptionPrevious value: -"Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields."New value: +"Structured result. Error responses include error and message."Output schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "pending_trades": {
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "Structured Gogi result. Error responses include error and message fields.",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description's contribution is the 'awaiting in-app Confirm' state qualifier, which usefully signals that returned items are blocked on human action, but it adds nothing about freshness, scope limits, or whether the list can be empty.
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?
One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and with no filler. Every word carries 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 zero-parameter, read-only list with an output schema describing the return shape, the description is nearly sufficient. The only gap is the absence of a pointer to the sibling that returns the status of an individual pending trade.
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 no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter meaning is missing because none exist.
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 (List) and resource (pending trades) and narrows scope with 'for this agent awaiting in-app Confirm', which helps separate it from the generic read siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_pending_trade_status, which an agent could easily confuse with it.
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 phrase 'awaiting in-app Confirm' implies the scenario (trades needing the user's confirmation before execution), but the description never says when to call this versus get_pending_trade_status or execute_trade, nor does it state any prerequisite. Usage is inferable but not stated.
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.