Retrieve a specific signed order from Dzengi by providing its symbol and order ID, enabling read-only access to order details through a local MCP server.
Read one signed order by its required symbol and order ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | Yes | ||
| orderId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description doesn't contradict them. It adds the 'signed order' descriptor, which hints at a specific state but doesn't explain consequences or additional behavior. Given the annotations cover safety, the description adds minimal new behavioral context, appropriate for a simple read.
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 a single sentence, extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. No redundant words, every word contributes.
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?
For a getter tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It doesn't describe the return structure, the meaning of 'signed order', or any edge conditions (e.g., whether the order must be active or historical). Given the sibling tools like list_open_orders, more context on what a signed order is and how it differs would help. The tool is simple, but the description leaves gaps in understanding what the agent can expect.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description has the burden to explain the parameters. It only names them ('symbol and order ID') and marks them required, which is already in the schema. It doesn't explain what symbol means (e.g., instrument identifier) or what constitutes a valid order ID, so it fails to add semantic value over the schema.
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 clearly states the action (read) and the resource (one signed order), specifying that it retrieves a single order by symbol and order ID. It distinguishes from list-type operations but does not reference any sibling or alternative, so it's clear but not differentiated.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_open_orders or list_trades. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., need the order ID) beyond the schema's required fields, nor does it say when not to use it. No context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.