get_order_statusNo version argument. Status of an order by id: open, pending signature, fulfilled, cancelled or expired, with the operation it performs and an explorer link. 'order' comes back null when the API cannot see that id, which a wrong id and a just-submitted order both produce - poll again briefly before concluding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orderId | Yes | The order id. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by explaining the ambiguous null behavior: both an invalid id and a just-submitted order produce null, and the agent should poll briefly before concluding. It also discloses the output contents (status, operation, explorer link), making the tool's behavior highly transparent.
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?
Two sentences carry a dense but well-organized amount of information: status enum, return contents, null semantics, and polling advice. There is no filler, no repetition of the schema, and the most important scoping note ('No version argument') is front-loaded.
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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, the possible status values, and the meaningful edge case around null results. An agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.
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 input schema already fully documents orderId as 'The order id' with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add much. It reinforces that the lookup is by id and clarifies what a null order value means, but this is supplemental rather than essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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: retrieving the status of an order by id. It enumerates the exact possible statuses (open, pending signature, fulfilled, cancelled, expired) and notes that it returns the operation and an explorer link, which clearly distinguishes it from list-style or mutation siblings.
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 makes the usage context clear: call this tool when you need the status of a specific order by id. It also gives polling guidance for null results. It does not explicitly contrast itself with get_pending_orders or other siblings, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer the right choice.
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.
The tool set is organized into clear read/prepare/action families, and cross-references like get_user_positions vs get_user_summary or get_markets vs get_reserve_details keep purposes distinct. A couple of generic names—prepare_action vs prepare_order, preview_action vs prepare_action—could cause misselection, but the descriptions explicitly separate them.
Names overwhelmingly follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_* for reads, prepare_* for transaction builders, plus cancel_order and submit_signed_order. The pattern is consistent overall, though a few generic exceptions like get_started, get_aave_guide, and preview_action break the strict resource-noun convention.
With 40 tools, the set is well past the 25+ threshold and feels heavy even though the domain is broad. Most tools are distinct and justified, but an agent must navigate a very large list, and the server could reasonably be split into protocol, governance, and swap/order surfaces.
The surface covers v3/v4 reads, positions, health factors, simulations, transaction building, collateral, eMode, liquidation, rewards, sGHO, swaps/orders, and governance proposal reads, with clear sequencing between preview, prepare, and submit. Minor gaps exist—governance has no voting transaction and stkGHO balance/cooldown state is not readable—but they do not block the core Aave workflows.