Submit multiple orders at once on a single BitPin market, placing up to 10 buy or sell orders in one authenticated request to reduce manual order entry.
Place up to 10 orders simultaneously on a single market in BitPin. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orders | Yes | Array of up to 10 order payloads. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it does add that authentication is required, which is useful. But for a bulk write tool the critical behavior is undisclosed: whether the batch is atomic or partially applied on failure, what validation rejects individual orders, and whether the operation is reversible.
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 sentences, the capability and its magnitude front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite. No filler to remove.
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 bulk-mutating order-placement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers capability and auth but omits partial-failure semantics and any hint of the per-order error behavior an agent needs before firing ten real orders.
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 100% and the single top-level parameter (orders) is itself documented as 'Array of up to 10 order payloads', so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the 10-order cap and adds nothing about per-order fields like limit vs market semantics.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource (place orders) plus a quantifiable scope (up to 10 simultaneously, single market), which clearly separates it from the single-order sibling bitpin_place_order. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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?
The 'up to 10 ... simultaneously on a single market' phrasing implicitly tells an agent when to prefer this over bitpin_place_order, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance, no note on whether cross-market batches are allowed, and no pointer to cancel_bulk_orders for rollback.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.