Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Pionex Management

MCP Pionex Management

by Eurobertics
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get open orders

pionex_orders_get_open_orders
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all open orders for a specified trading pair symbol, up to 200 per symbol, to monitor pending trades in real time.

Instructions

Get open orders

Get all open orders for a symbol. Maximum 200 open orders per symbol. Weight: 5.

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": {
      "symbol": "<symbol>"
    },
    "name": "pionex_orders_get_open_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
symbolYesTrading pair symbol

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?

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world read, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine operational context beyond that: a 200-order cap per symbol and a rate-limit 'Weight: 5', which help the agent plan calls.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope; the cap and weight follow as useful secondary detail. No wasted text. The only redundancy is the first line restating the title.

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 list tool with annotations covering safety and a fully documented parameter, the description is largely adequate, and it adds rate-limit/cap detail. It stops short of any hint about the return shape (fields, ordering, pagination), which matters somewhat since there is no output schema.

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 'symbol' parameter, so the schema fully documents it and the description only restates the symbol scoping. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource ('Get all open orders') and scopes it to a symbol, which distinguishes it from the broader pionex_orders_get_all_orders and single-order pionex_orders_get_order. It is clear but does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied: the 'open' qualifier and the per-symbol scoping tell an agent this is the tool for current, unfilled orders. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or naming of the alternative list tools (get_all_orders, get_order) that would make selection unambiguous.

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