Retrieve active pending orders for a T-Bank investment account by account ID, including order ID, direction, type, status, price, quantity, and instrument info.
Get list of active (pending) orders for an account.
Returns: order_id, direction, type, status, price, quantity, instrument info.
Args: account_id: Account ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the enumerated return fields (order_id, direction, type, status, price, quantity, instrument info) and confirms the tool is scoped to pending orders only, which is genuine added context, but it says nothing about ordering, limits, or pagination.
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 definition is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by clearly labeled Returns and Args sections. Every line carries some information, though the Args line is near-redundant with the parameter name.
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 correctly compensates by listing return fields, which is the main gap it needed to fill. However, for a filtered list tool it omits result limits, ordering, and the absence of pagination, leaving the agent unsure how complete the returned list is.
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 0% for the single required parameter, and the description supplies only 'account_id: Account ID', which merely restates the parameter name. No format, sourcing, or example is given to compensate for the schema's silence, so the description adds no meaning.
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 list of ... orders') plus a scope qualifier ('active (pending)'), which implicitly separates it from the single-order sibling get_order_state and the historical get_operations. It does not name those siblings, so an agent must still infer the boundary, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.
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 indication of when to use this versus get_order_state or get_operations_by_cursor, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is the parenthetical '(pending)', which implies a filter but is not framed as a use condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.