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 of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention authentication requirements, rate limits, caching behavior, or whether this endpoint is idempotent. While '取得' suggests a read operation, the description does not explicitly confirm it is safe, public, or describe the data freshness guarantees.

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 consists of a single efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. However, given the complete absence of annotations, it may be overly terse as it leaves no room for behavioral context that would help an agent understand operational constraints.

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?

While the tool has zero parameters (fully covered by schema) and an output schema exists (removing the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. Given the lack of annotations, clear gaps remain regarding authentication scope, rate limiting, and whether the endpoint is public or private. It meets basic requirements but lacks operational context.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rubric. No parameter semantics are required or provided.

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 a list of all available currencies on MAX (a cryptocurrency exchange), using specific verb '取得' (get/retrieve) and resource '貨幣列表' (currency list). It distinguishes from siblings like get_accounts, get_markets, and get_tickers by focusing on the currency catalog rather than user data or market data.

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. It does not indicate whether this should be called before trading to validate currency symbols, or how it relates to get_markets (which likely returns trading pairs). No prerequisites, exclusion criteria, or workflow context is provided.

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