Retrieve details and history for fixed-term crypto loan supply orders, using filters like order ID, state, currency, and cursor to track lending positions.
Query supply (lending) order details and history.
Rate limit: 5 requests per UID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| term | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| orderId | No | ||
| orderCurrency | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds a concrete rate limit ('5 requests per UID') beyond what the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already convey. It also uses 'Query,' which is consistent with the read-only annotation. It does not go into pagination or result behavior, but the rate-limit disclosure is genuinely useful operational context.
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 extremely concise, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the rate limit cleanly separated. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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?
Despite having six parameters, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description only states the general purpose and rate limit. It does not explain how cursor pagination works, what state values exist, what orderCurrency expects, or what the response contains. An agent has too little information to use the tool correctly beyond making a blind 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 0% and the description provides no information about any of the six parameters (term, limit, state, cursor, orderId, orderCurrency). With no param documentation in either the schema or the description, an agent cannot infer what values are valid or how the parameters affect the query.
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 specific verb 'Query' and the resource 'supply (lending) order details and history,' which distinguishes it from the many borrow-related and quote/cancel siblings. The parenthetical 'lending' removes ambiguity about the meaning of 'supply.' Even without naming a sibling, the resource and action are 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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the closely related getCryptoLoanFixedBorrowOrderInfo, getCryptoLoanFixedSupplyContractInfo, or getCryptoLoanFixedSupplyOrderQuote. The description implies it is for querying supply-order details, but it does not state exclusions, alternatives, or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.