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 burden for behavioral disclosure. While '查詢' implies a read operation, the description fails to disclose error handling (what happens if UUID not found), rate limits, or safety characteristics that would help the agent understand operational constraints.

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 appropriately minimal—one line stating purpose and one line documenting the parameter. No extraneous text is present. However, the Sphinx docstring syntax (:param:) is slightly technical for MCP tool descriptions.

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, the description need not explain return values. With only one required parameter and no complex nested structures, the description meets minimum requirements but lacks context on error states or the relationship between this single record and the list endpoint.

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 (only title 'Uuid' provided), the description compensates by documenting the parameter as '存款 UUID' (Deposit UUID), clarifying that this UUID specifically refers to a deposit record. The Sphinx-style formatting is suboptimal but functional.

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 '查詢單筆存款詳情' (Query single deposit details) clearly states the verb (query) and resource (single deposit details). It effectively distinguishes from the sibling 'get_deposits' by emphasizing '單筆' (single/individual), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_deposit_address.

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 term '單筆' (single) implicitly contrasts with the plural 'get_deposits', suggesting this is for individual lookup versus listing. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the plural form, error conditions (e.g., invalid UUID), or prerequisites.

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