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. It fails to indicate whether this is a safe read-only operation, idempotent, or if there are rate limits. It only states what data is retrieved without explaining side effects or safety properties.

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 with no wasted words, consisting of a single purpose statement followed by two parameter documentation lines. While efficient, the use of Sphinx-style :param: directives in an MCP description field is slightly unconventional though functional.

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?

For a simple list retrieval tool with an output schema available, the description covers the basic functionality and parameters. However, it lacks safety classification (critical given no annotations), pagination strategy guidance, and explicit differentiation from the singular 'get_convert' tool, leaving contextual gaps.

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 adequately by documenting both parameters using docstring-style notation: limit is defined as '每頁筆數' (items per page) and page as '頁碼' (page number), including their defaults. This provides necessary semantic meaning absent 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 clearly states the tool retrieves '閃兌歷史記錄' (flash exchange/convert history records) using the specific verb '取得' (get/obtain). While the plural form 'converts' and term 'history' implicitly distinguish it from the singular 'get_convert', it lacks explicit contrast with siblings that would warrant a 5.

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 alternatives like 'get_convert' (singular) or how it relates to 'submit_convert'. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow recommendations mentioned.

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