MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'cancel' implies mutation, the description lacks details about side effects (e.g., whether cancellations are immediate or batched), error handling (what if no orders exist), idempotency, or permission requirements.

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 uses structured Sphinx-style parameter documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose—defining the operation or explaining parameter semantics. The Chinese text is appropriately concise for the domain.

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. All three parameters are documented, compensating for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it misses the opportunity to clarify the relationship with the singular 'cancel_order' sibling, leaving potential ambiguity for the agent.

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 effectively via inline :param documentation. It specifies valid enum values for 'wallet_type' ('spot' or 'm') and 'side' ('buy' or 'sell'), notes defaults ('spot', null), and provides an example for 'market' ('btcusdt'), adding substantial meaning absent from the raw 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 clearly states it performs '批次取消' (batch cancellation) of orders ('掛單') for a specific market, using a specific verb-resource combination. The term '批次' (batch) implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'cancel_order' (singular), though it could explicitly clarify this distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'cancel_order', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring open orders) or exclusions. It only documents parameters without contextual usage rules.

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