pionex_bot_get_futures_grid_orderFetch details for a Pionex futures grid bot order using its bot order ID, so you can inspect status, parameters, or fills.
Get futures grid order
Query a futures grid bot order by ID. Weight: 1.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language | |
| buOrderId | Yes | Bot order ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Weight: 1' (a rate-limit cost), which is genuinely useful context not present in structured fields, but says nothing about what the returned order contains.
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 opens by repeating the title verbatim, which is waste, then gives one efficient sentence plus the weight note. Front-loaded enough, but the title duplication costs it.
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 lookup with a fully documented 2-parameter schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks any indication of what fields the returned futures grid order will contain, which an agent calling this cold would want.
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% and the schema documents both buOrderId and lang. The description's 'by ID' merely echoes the required parameter, adding no format or source detail beyond the schema, so the 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?
The sentence 'Query a futures grid bot order by ID' names a specific verb and resource, and the 'futures' qualifier distinguishes it from pionex_bot_get_spot_grid_order. It does not, however, differentiate itself from pionex_bot_get_bot_orders or other order-lookup siblings.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus pionex_bot_get_bot_orders, pionex_orders_get_order, or the various check/adjust futures grid tools. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.