projectx-mcp

Open orders

list_open_orders

Read-only

Retrieves all working orders on a trading account, including bracket stop and target legs, to provide current open order details.

Instructions

Working orders on an account (includes bracket stop/target legs).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>"
    },
    "name": "list_open_orders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`accountId`	Yes	Trading account ID from list_accounts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the useful nuance that bracket stop/target legs are included, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like rate limits, error conditions, or output format beyond what annotations imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with a parenthetical nuance. It is concise, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only query tool, the description is adequate but minimal. Without an output schema, it does not mention return fields, ordering, or pagination, leaving an agent to infer the response shape from the tool name and the 'working orders' phrase.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description clearly explains accountId as the trading account ID from list_accounts. The tool description merely reinforces that the scope is an account, adding no new semantic detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly indicates the tool provides working/open orders for an account, including bracket stop/target legs. It distinguishes from sibling actions like cancel_order and place_order by focusing on a listing operation, though it does not explicitly name search_orders as an alternative.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: it is for viewing working orders on a specific account. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over search_orders (which may cover broader order queries) or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.