Cancel all open orders for a trading pair, effectively stopping any running grid strategy
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol (e.g., BTC/USDT, INDY/USDT) | |
| exchange | Yes | Exchange to query. Supported: mexc, gateio, bitget, kraken |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the destructive scope (cancelling all open orders for a pair) and the downstream effect (stopping a running grid strategy). It does not discuss reversibility, but the main behavioral traits are explicit.
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?
A single sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded followed by the intended effect, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 two-parameter cancel operation, the description covers the action, scope, and outcome. However, given the existence of a sibling tool with an identical action ('cancel_all_orders'), the description lacks routing context to help an agent select correctly between them.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'symbol' and 'exchange' are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, making the baseline score of 3 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Cancel all open orders for a trading pair' and adds the intended outcome of stopping a grid strategy. However, it does not differentiate itself from the closely named sibling 'cancel_all_orders', which appears to describe the same action on the same resource.
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 'effectively stopping any running grid strategy' implies the intended use case for halting a strategy. But it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cancel_order or cancel_all_orders.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but cancel_all_orders and stop_strategy both cancel all open orders for a trading pair, creating real ambiguity. The grid strategy tools are otherwise well-separated from the general exchange tools, though start_grid_strategy overlaps somewhat with create_order.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as get_ticker, list_orders, create_order, and stop_strategy. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic verbs.
Fifteen tools is at the upper edge of a well-scoped set, but each tool covers a meaningful operation across exchange trading, Cardano DEX data, and grid strategy management. The count feels slightly broad but not bloated.
The server provides solid coverage for trading workflows: market data, order management, balance retrieval, exchange discovery, and grid strategy lifecycle. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific historical order or modify an existing order, but core operations are covered.