Retrieve all open orders for a trading symbol or exchange. Provide either a symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE) or an exchange name to list current pending orders.
获取所有挂单。必须提供 symbol 或 exchange 之一。
Args: symbol: 交易对，如 BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE exchange: 交易所名称，如 binance
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | ||
| exchange | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the key behavioral constraint (must specify symbol or exchange) and that it returns all open orders. It does not mention precedence when both params are given, result limits, or whether this is account-wide, but for a read-style listing tool the essential behavior is stated.
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?
The description is compact and efficient: one sentence states the operation and constraint, followed by concise parameter examples. No filler or repetition of schema metadata. The key requirement is front-loaded.
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?
Given that an output schema exists and the tool is a read-only listing, the description covers the operation, the required filter, and the argument formats. It lacks sibling differentiation and any mention of edge cases, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by naming each parameter, giving a concrete format example (BTCUSDT-PERP.BINANCE, binance), and stating the one-of requirement. This adds real meaning beyond the bare schema. A bit more format detail would push it higher.
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?
The description states a specific action — retrieving all open orders — with a clear resource and scope. The '所有挂单' (all open orders) wording distinguishes it from the sibling get_order, which presumably fetches a single order. The required filter condition is front-loaded.
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?
It clearly states a hard prerequisite: provide either symbol or exchange. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus the many sibling order/position tools, nor does it describe what happens when both or neither are provided. Usage is mostly implied by the tool name rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.