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. It fails to specify whether the tool generates a new address or retrieves an existing one, its idempotency, or cache behavior. It only minimally describes the input parameter with examples.

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 brief for a single-parameter tool, with the purpose front-loaded in the first line. The Sphinx-style parameter documentation is slightly technical but efficiently conveys the necessary information without redundancy.

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 adequate for a simple retrieval operation and sufficient given the existence of an output schema, the description omits important context such as whether the address is user-specific, if it's safe to call repeatedly, and how it relates to deposit history retrieval tools.

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 has 0% description coverage. The description compensates fully by explaining `currency_version` as '幣種版本' and providing concrete examples ('eth', 'trc20usdt', 'erc20usdt'), clarifying the expected format and valid network identifiers.

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 deposit address ('取得指定幣種的充值地址') with a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `get_deposit` (likely history) and `get_withdraw_addresses` through the explicit '充值' (deposit) terminology.

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 similar alternatives like `get_deposit` or `get_deposits`, nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or valid currency states.

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