get_my_ordersYOUR paper order history (newest first): fills with symbol, side, qty, price, notional, timestamp. Agent key required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| competition | No | optional competition id - scope this call to that competition sub-book |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / competitionAdded value: +{
+ "description": "optional competition id - scope this call to that competition sub-book",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds the ordering ('newest first'), the list of returned fields (symbol, side, qty, price, notional, timestamp), and the auth requirement ('Agent key required'), which are valuable behavioral details beyond the annotations.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose, ordering, and key details without any filler. Every clause adds value.
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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description provides essential information: what it returns, ordering, and auth requirement. It does not mention pagination or default behavior, but those are minor for this tool's simplicity.
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 schema description covers the single optional parameter (competition) at 100% coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no additional parameter context.
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: returns the user's paper order history, ordered newest first, and lists the exact fields returned. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_my_positions or get_portfolio by specifying 'paper order history'.
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 gives context (own order history) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like get_my_positions or get_portfolio. It does mention the requirement of an agent key, which is useful, but no direct 'use this when...' guidance or exclusions.
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.