Get guidance and code patterns for building React trading UI components with the Orderly SDK, customized by component type and complexity.
Get guidance on building React UI components using Orderly SDK
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | Yes | Component type (e.g., 'order-entry', 'orderbook', 'positions', 'wallet-connector') | |
| complexity | No | Guide complexity ('minimal', 'standard', 'advanced') | standard |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only lookup but says nothing about what the guide actually contains (code samples, imports, SDK versions), whether results are static or versioned, or how large the output is. For a guidance-generation tool with zero annotation coverage this leaves significant behavior undisclosed.
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?
A single efficient sentence with the key concept (React components via Orderly SDK) front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though it is arguably too terse given the missing behavioral detail.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the nature of the returned guidance and it only partially does. Parameter documentation is solid, but an agent cannot predict what it will receive back or how the 'complexity' setting alters the result.
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 both parameters are documented with examples and a default, so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about the component identifier or what complexity levels change in the returned guide, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Get guidance on building React UI components using Orderly SDK'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_api_info or get_contract_addresses. It does not explicitly contrast with search_orderly_docs, so it stops short of a 5.
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 call this versus search_orderly_docs or explain_workflow, both of which could plausibly surface similar guidance. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no stated conditions that select this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.