MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral specifics like the maximum limit of 1000 records and enumerates valid state values (done/cancel/finalizing/failed). However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, sorting order, or rate limiting concerns.

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 docstring format is efficiently structured with the purpose statement front-loaded, followed by structured parameter documentation. Every line provides necessary information without redundancy or filler content.

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 and the parameter documentation in the description, the definition is nearly complete. It could be improved by explicitly stating this is a safe read-only operation (given the 'get' prefix) and mentioning pagination or sorting behavior, but the core contract is well-defined.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description comprehensively documents all four parameters using :param directives. It specifies data types (spot/m for wallet_type), default values (spot, 50), constraints (max 1000), and enumerated valid states (done/cancel/finalizing/failed), fully compensating for the schema's lack of metadata.

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 the tool retrieves closed orders (取得已關閉的訂單) and immediately clarifies the scope includes filled, cancelled, and other terminal states (已成交、已取消等). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_open_orders and get_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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_open_orders, get_order, or get_orders_history. It does not mention prerequisites, authorization requirements, or conditions where this query would be preferred over others.

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