kite-connect-mcp

Trades of an order

get_order_trades

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the fills and executed trades generated by a specific order using its order_id. Use it to inspect execution details and confirm which trades an order produced.

Instructions

The fills that one order produced.

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": {
      "order_id": "<order_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_order_trades"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`order_id`	Yes	the order_id (see get_orders)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title — no note on empty results for unfilled orders, ordering, or volume of fills.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One short sentence with zero filler and the scoping constraint ('one order') front-loaded. It is efficient to the point of being terse — a verb would make it a complete statement — but no words are wasted.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter), annotations are rich, and there is no output schema, so the burden is light. Still, the description omits the return shape (a list of fills is implied but never stated) and any relation to get_orders/get_trades, leaving modest gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents order_id including a pointer to get_orders. The description contributes no additional meaning about the identifier format or source, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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 sentence identifies a specific resource — the fills generated by a single order — which implicitly separates it from the broader get_trades sibling. However, it is a verbless fragment ('The fills that one order produced') and never names the alternative tool, so the differentiation is inferred 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says to call this after place_order or modify_order, or when to prefer it over get_trades or get_order_history. The agent must guess the selection criteria from the name alone.

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