List open orders on an exchange (REAL). Params: exchange ("binance"|"bingx"|"bybit"), symbol (optional, e.g. "BTC_USDT"). binance = futures open orders, bybit = linear perps; bingx spot returns unsupported (single-order query only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| symbol | No | ||
| exchange | Yes |
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, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It goes beyond a generic listing by revealing exchange-specific behavior (binance futures, bybit linear perps) and the bingx spot limitation. It does not cover pagination or response format, but the core behavioral traits are present.
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 compact and front-loaded; the main action is stated in the first sentence, and the remaining sentences add parameter values, scoping behavior, and an important limitation without redundancy. Every clause earns its place.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions in the schema, the description is nearly sufficient for correct selection and invocation. It covers all required invocation details and behavioral nuances, with minor omissions like output shape and authentication expectations.
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 0%, and the description fully compensates: it enumerates the valid exchange values, marks symbol as optional, and gives a concrete symbol format example. This adds meaning far beyond the empty schema properties.
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?
Description opens with the specific verb-resource pair 'List open orders' and immediately scopes it to an exchange, with 'REAL' signaling live versus test environment. The exchange-specific clarifications further distinguish this from sibling tools like get_orderbook, get_positions, and place_order.
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 description gives clear context on when to use this tool: to retrieve open orders, with exchange and optional symbol semantics spelled out. It also provides an explicit negative case, bingx spot returning unsupported, which helps the agent avoid an invalid call, though it does not name alternative sibling tools.
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.
Many tools serve distinct purposes (hedging, funding, agents, market data), but several overlap heavily: get_basis_regime, get_basis_signal, get_basis_history, analyze_pair_liquidity, and get_perp_arbitrage all analyze exchange spreads/basis with blurred boundaries. Similarly, close_hedged_position vs close_position and hedge_status vs list_hedge_positions vs get_positions could cause misselection without careful reading.
The set predominantly follows a verb_noun pattern (get_*, open_*, close_*, set_*, list_*, place_*) which is predictable and readable. Minor deviations exist: agent_chat, agent_trigger, and square_post break the convention, and the hedge-specific tools mix status/list/adjust naming inconsistently.
35 tools is on the heavy side and pushes past the ideal scope for a single server. Many tools are data-retrieval variants (basis history/regime/signal/liquidity) that could be consolidated, and the breadth from news to square posts to agent management makes the surface feel sprawling rather than focused.
Core workflows (hedging, basis analysis, funding arbitrage, agent interaction, position management) are well covered, but there are noticeable gaps: there is no cancel_order tool despite get_open_orders and place_order existing, no order history or trade history, and no exchange-side position listing for real user positions. The server covers its niche but leaves some common trading dead ends.