Check the status of a specific Binance USDⓈ-M Futures order to see if it was filled, pending, or cancelled.
Query the status of a specific order on Binance USDⓈ-M Futures. Use this to check if an order was filled, pending, or cancelled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | Trading pair symbol (e.g., BTCUSDT, ETHUSDT) | |
| orderId | No | Order ID from Binance | |
| origClientOrderId | No | Original client order ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only lookup via the filled/pending/cancelled outcome, but says nothing about authentication/API-key requirements, rate limits, the fact that Binance order queries typically only cover recent orders, or the error behavior when an order is not found.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, purpose front-loaded before the outcome hint. Efficient, though the second sentence is the only guidance offered and nothing structurally elaborates on identity or failure cases.
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 compensate more than it does. It omits authentication prerequisites and does not resolve how an order is identified given that only symbol is required in the schema, leaving a real risk of a malformed call.
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 the schema already documents symbol, orderId, and origClientOrderId; baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning — notably it does not clarify the key ambiguity that the schema marks only symbol as required while one of orderId or origClientOrderId is presumably needed to identify the order.
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 (Query) and resource (status of a specific order) plus the venue (Binance USDⓈ-M Futures), so the agent knows exactly what it does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings such as get-open-orders or get-all-orders, which also return order data.
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?
"Use this to check if an order was filled, pending, or cancelled" gives an implied use case but names no alternatives and no exclusions. It never says to prefer get-open-orders for bulk listing or what to do when the target order is older than the query window.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.