Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Pionex Management

MCP Pionex Management

by Eurobertics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Pause futures grid order

pionex_bot_pause_futures_grid
Destructive

Pause a running futures grid bot order to stop auto-refilling while retaining the position; choose immediate or conditional trigger modes.

Instructions

Pause futures grid order

Pause a running futures grid order. Runs the same validation as pauseCheck, then executes asynchronously. Once paused the grid stops auto-refilling orders while the position is retained; immediate mode takes effect at the live market price. Does not return a status field (async processing). 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>",
      "mode": "<mode>"
    },
    "name": "pionex_bot_pause_futures_grid"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeYesPause mode: `immediate` = pause now (backend uses live market price, not client-supplied); `conditional` = pause on trigger price
buOrderIdYesBot order ID
stopLossEnabledNoWhether to keep stop-loss active while paused
stopProfitEnabledNoWhether to keep take-profit active while paused
triggerPausePriceUpNoUpward trigger price. Set either direction or both.
triggerPausePriceDownNoDownward trigger price.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, non-idempotent), the description adds meaningful traits: asynchronous execution, that the grid stops auto-refilling while the position is retained, and that no `status` field is returned. It stops short of explaining what 'destructive' entails for the user, but the added async/retention context is substantive.

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?

The text is front-loaded and short, leading with the action and then adding async behavior and retention details. The opening line repeats the title and 'Weight: 1' is API metadata, minor redundancy, but overall it earns its length.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an async destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key gaps: async processing, no status returned, and position retention. It could say more about reversibility or the effect of the stop-loss/profit flags, but it is largely complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the mode enum, trigger prices, and stop-loss/profit toggles. The description only restates that immediate mode uses the live market price, adding marginal value over 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Pause a running futures grid order') and the title mirrors it, so an agent immediately knows the operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like resume, cancel, or reduce, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It hints at the workflow by noting it 'Runs the same validation as `pauseCheck`', implying the check tool precedes it, and that 'immediate' mode acts at live market price. However, it never states when to use pause vs resume, cancel, or reduce, nor any prerequisite/exclusion conditions.

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