List open orders on a supported exchange, optionally filtered by trading pair symbol
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | Optional trading pair to filter by (e.g., BTC/USDT). Returns all if omitted. | |
| exchange | Yes | Exchange to query. Supported: mexc, gateio, bitget, kraken |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or whether the operation is strictly read-only. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but important behavioral details are omitted.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then adds the optional filter. Every token earns its place; no waste.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description and schema cover the essential inputs and purpose. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not explain the return format, authentication requirements, or any exchange-specific behavior, leaving some gaps for an agent to resolve.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds little beyond the schema, only restating the optional symbol filter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description does not need to compensate.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clear resource ('open orders') and context ('on a supported exchange'), and mentions the optional symbol filter. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order, create_order, and get_trades.
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 usage is implied: use this tool to list currently open orders on an exchange, optionally filtered by pair. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives such as get_trades or get_orderbook, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are clearly distinct, but cancel_all_orders and stop_strategy both cancel all open orders for a trading pair, creating real ambiguity. The grid strategy tools are otherwise well-separated from the general exchange tools, though start_grid_strategy overlaps somewhat with create_order.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern, such as get_ticker, list_orders, create_order, and stop_strategy. There are no mixed conventions or vague generic verbs.
Fifteen tools is at the upper edge of a well-scoped set, but each tool covers a meaningful operation across exchange trading, Cardano DEX data, and grid strategy management. The count feels slightly broad but not bloated.
The server provides solid coverage for trading workflows: market data, order management, balance retrieval, exchange discovery, and grid strategy lifecycle. Minor gaps exist, such as no way to fetch a specific historical order or modify an existing order, but core operations are covered.