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 full disclosure burden. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether data is real-time or cached, or any authorization requirements. The description only states what data is retrieved, not behavioral characteristics.

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?

Extremely concise with zero filler. Uses standard docstring format (:param) efficiently. Purpose statement is front-loaded in the first line, followed by parameter specifics. Slightly informal embedding of param docs prevents a perfect 5.

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 existence of an output schema and only two simple parameters (both documented), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any mention of the return structure or what constitutes a 'complete' result set, which would help given the 'various currencies' scope.

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 effectively compensates by documenting both parameters: wallet_type explains the 'spot' vs 'm' options and default value, while currency clarifies the specific-vs-all filtering behavior with an example ('btc'). Minor gap: 'm' wallet type is not explained (though siblings suggest margin wallet).

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 clearly states the tool retrieves account balances for various currencies (取得帳戶各幣種餘額). The term '餘額' (balance) effectively distinguishes it from transaction-oriented siblings like get_deposits or get_withdrawals, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_user_info.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the parameter descriptions imply wallet selection logic (spot vs M wallet), there is no mention of prerequisites, rate limits, or when to prefer this over other account-related tools.

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