MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden for a destructive operation. It fails to disclose error conditions (e.g., order not found, already filled), idempotency guarantees, or side effects. The term '掛單' (pending order) implies state requirements but doesn't clarify failure modes.

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 appropriately compact with zero filler. The Sphinx-style :param: documentation is structured and efficient, though slightly more optimized for human developers than LLM parsing. No sentences waste space.

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 the presence of an output schema (per context signals), the description appropriately omits return value details. However, for a financial trading API mutation, it lacks necessary context about order state prerequisites, rate limiting, or validation rules beyond the basic parameter descriptions.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting the critical XOR relationship: '與 client_oid 擇一' (choose one with client_oid). It explains that order_id is the system ID while client_oid is the custom ID, providing essential semantics missing from the schema.

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 '取消單筆掛單' (Cancel single pending order) provides a specific verb (cancel) and resource (pending order). The term '單筆' (single) effectively distinguishes this tool from the sibling 'cancel_orders' (plural), clarifying this is for individual cancellation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus 'cancel_orders' or other order management tools. While the parameter documentation implies mutual exclusivity between identifiers, there is no 'when-to-use' or 'when-not-to-use' guidance for tool selection.

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