hydromancer_wallet_open_ordersRetrieve all resting orders for a wallet, including stop-loss and take-profit triggers, to see where a trader plans to buy, sell, or exit.
All resting orders for a wallet right now, including stop-loss and take-profit triggers. Shows where a trader plans to buy, sell or exit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Wallet address, 0x followed by 40 hex characters. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does 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 useful scope context (what counts as an open order, including trigger orders), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, empty-result behavior, or rate limits on this 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core scope. The second sentence is interpretive rather than redundant, though slightly soft ('shows where a trader plans to buy, sell or exit') compared with the precision of the first.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description is the only source of return-value context, yet it does not describe the fields an agent would get back (side, price, size, trigger type, timestamps). Adequate for selecting the tool, thin for interpreting results.
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?
Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the address format documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 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?
States a specific resource and scope: 'all resting orders for a wallet right now', and enumerates the order types included (stop-loss, take-profit). An agent can tell this apart from historical tools by the 'right now' framing, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by 'right now' and 'resting orders', which signals a current-state snapshot versus historical trade/order tools. It never states when to prefer it over hydromancer_wallet_trades or hydromancer_wallet_closed_trades, and offers no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.