Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Pionex Management

MCP Pionex Management

by Eurobertics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get spot grid order

pionex_bot_get_spot_grid_order
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a spot grid bot order by ID to check its status and details.

Instructions

Get spot grid order

Query a spot grid bot order by ID. Weight: 1.

Tool call template

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": {
      "buOrderId": "<buOrderId>"
    },
    "name": "pionex_bot_get_spot_grid_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buOrderIdYesBot order ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the API weight (Weight: 1), which is minor extra context; it doesn't disclose return shape, error behavior, or rate-limit implications beyond weight.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The title repetition ('Get spot grid order') is slightly redundant with the title field but not harmful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and a rich sibling set, the minimal description is adequate but thin. It lacks return-value context (no output schema) and doesn't help the agent distinguish this from pionex_bot_get_bot_orders or the futures grid getter.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter (buOrderId: "Bot order ID"), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, prefix, or source guidance for obtaining the ID, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (query/get), resource (spot grid bot order), and the lookup key (by ID). It is distinguishable from the futures counterpart (pionex_bot_get_futures_grid_order) and from the order-creation sibling, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implied usage: the agent should call this to retrieve a single spot grid bot order. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. pionex_bot_get_bot_orders or the futures grid variant, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing a valid buOrderId.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools