Use this when the user asks what orders were placed through MCPify (our audit records, including which source placed them: web, mcp agent, admin) — successes and rejections alike.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of records | |
| action | No | Filter by action |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful scope beyond annotations—audit records, sources, and inclusion of both successes and rejections—but does not disclose return format or pagination behavior.
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; it front-loads the exact trigger and key scoping details. Every phrase contributes to selection and invocation.
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 read-only list tool with two documented parameters, the description is adequate. It does not describe the return shape, but the absence of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward nature of the tool.
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%, with limit and action fully described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly identifies the operation as retrieving MCPify audit order records, including which source placed them and both successes and rejections. It is specific about the resource, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_my_open_orders or get_my_trade_history to contrast against.
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?
"Use this when the user asks what orders were placed through MCPify" is an explicit trigger condition. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it for audit/order queries.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action, but get_markets and get_price overlap in the data they return (price, 24h change, volume, funding), differing mainly by all-markets vs single-coin scope. The descriptions are explicit enough that an agent should rarely misselect, though the boundary is slightly blurry.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_ for reads, plus clear action verbs like place_, preview_, cancel_, close_, and set_. There is no mixing of styles or vague generic verbs.
13 tools is well within the ideal range for a trading-focused server. Each tool covers a distinct part of the workflow without feeling bloated or redundant.
The tool surface covers the full trading lifecycle: market data, account/position/order/trade reads, order preview and placement, cancellation, position closing, and TP/SL management. No obvious dead-ends or missing core operations for the stated Hyperliquid perp trading purpose.