Fetch orders from the demo account to review open positions before approving or placing broker trades.
Orders in the demo account.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_orders"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description need not restate safety. It contributes the 'demo account' scoping fact, which is real added context, but says nothing about what orders are returned, ordering, limits, or pagination behavior.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than disciplined editing; the whole description is a sentence fragment.
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?
There is no output schema and no parameters, so the description is the sole carrier of meaning, and 'Orders in the demo account' leaves an agent unable to tell what the return data covers or how it differs from get_all_positions. Inadequate for even a simple tool.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.
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 is a bare noun phrase ('Orders in the demo account') that essentially restates the tool name with an account scope qualifier. It contains no verb, and it does nothing to distinguish this from siblings such as get_all_positions or get_stock_latest_quote beyond the word 'orders' and the account scope.
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 versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites. The only signal is that the scope is the demo account, which is an implicit constraint rather than usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.