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 read-only operation, what the default sorting is (chronological?), how far back history extends, 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 description is efficiently sized with the main purpose stated first, followed by structured :param documentation. While compact, the docstring format is slightly less scannable than bullet points for LLM parsing, though still 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, for a history/pagination endpoint with 4 optional filters, it lacks specifics on valid enum values for 'state', timezone handling, or maximum pagination limits.

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 titles provided), the description compensates by documenting all four parameters: currency filter, pagination (limit/page defaults), and state filter. It clarifies that empty values return all records. However, it omits valid values for 'state' (e.g., 'completed', 'pending') and currency format expectations.

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 '取得存款歷史記錄' (Get deposit history records), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this list endpoint from the sibling 'get_deposit' (singular), which likely retrieves a specific record by ID.

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_deposit' (singular) or 'get_internal_transfers'. It does not mention prerequisites, pagination best practices, or time range limitations.

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