Retrieve open orders from Bybit for spot, linear, inverse, or option categories, filtering by symbol, order ID, or limit to track active trades and manage positions.
Get open orders
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| symbol | No | ||
| orderId | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| orderLinkId | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses nothing: not whether it requires authentication, whether results are paginated (the limit param hints at it but is unexplained), or whether it returns all categories or only one. This is essentially zero disclosure for an API query tool.
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 short, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than conciseness. There is no wasted text because there is almost no text at all, which fails the tool's documentation needs.
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 five-parameter query tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine filtering behavior, pagination, or return shape from it.
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 0% across five parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain category (required), symbol, orderId, orderLinkId, or limit, leaving all filtering semantics undocumented.
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 merely restates the tool name, 'get_open_orders' → 'Get open orders'. It identifies a resource but adds no scope, no verb nuance, and no differentiation from siblings like get_positions or get_account_info. This is a tautology rather than a purpose statement.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_positions or get_orderbook, and no prerequisites or context. It offers nothing beyond a bare restatement of the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.