pionex_orders_get_fillsRetrieve trade fills for a symbol with optional start and end times; returns the latest 100 fills when the requested range exceeds the limit.
Get fills
Get trade fills for a symbol. Returns latest 100 fills when exceeding limit. Weight: 5.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol | |
| endTime | No | End time in milliseconds | |
| startTime | No | Start time in milliseconds |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the description only needs to add non-obvious traits. It does so usefully: the 100-fill return cap and the 'Weight: 5' rate-limit cost, both of which materially affect how an agent calls it. Minor gap: no sort order or pagination semantics.
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?
Very short and front-loaded, with the return-cap and weight caveats placed at the end where they belong. The opening line 'Get fills' duplicates the title and wastes a little space.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return behavior, and it partially does (latest 100 fills). It omits ordering, pagination, and empty-result behavior, which leaves gaps for a data-retrieval tool with three parameters.
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%, so symbol, startTime, and endTime are already documented with names and units. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when structured fields do the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Get trade fills for a symbol'), which is clear enough to act on. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely related sibling pionex_orders_get_fills_by_order_id, so an agent must infer the difference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative pionex_orders_get_fills_by_order_id. The only routing clue is the symbol requirement, which is implicit rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.