List resting Hyperliquid orders including SL/TP triggers for a wallet.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"walletId": "<walletId>"
},
"name": "list_hyperliquid_open_orders"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| walletId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add real context by specifying that only resting (unfilled) orders are returned and that stop-loss/take-profit trigger orders are included, but it says nothing about whether results span all symbols, pagination, ordering, or what the response shape looks like.
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, with the qualifier about SL/TP triggers appended for scoping. Nothing is wasted and nothing essential is buried.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what is listed and whose orders are listed, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gaps (read-only confirmation, pagination, identifier type) are minor at this complexity level.
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 coverage is 0% for the single walletId parameter, so the description must compensate. The phrase 'for a wallet' links the parameter to the concept of the wallet being queried, but it does not clarify whether walletId is an internal wallet identifier or a chain address, nor whether the wallet must be Hyperliquid-enabled.
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 (List) plus a named resource (resting Hyperliquid orders) and states the scope ('for a wallet'), and it calls out that SL/TP trigger orders are included. That makes it distinguishable from cancel_hyperliquid_orders and list_hyperliquid_positions, though it never names a sibling to route against explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: 'List resting orders' suggests a read of currently open orders, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over list_hyperliquid_positions, get_hyperliquid_user_fills, or get_hyperliquid_history, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.
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.