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 disclosure burden. It successfully indicates the return structure (bid/ask prices and quantities) and mentions the 300-item limit, but omits operational details like rate limits, data freshness/real-time nature, or authentication requirements that would help an agent understand the tool's reliability and 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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, followed by two :param lines documenting inputs. Every element earns its place with no redundancy or filler text, appropriate for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 that an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately avoids redundant return value documentation. The combination of clear purpose statement and complete inline parameter documentation provides sufficient context for this read-only market data tool, though mentioning whether authentication is required would achieve full completeness.

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 fully compensates by documenting both parameters inline. It provides an example ('btcusdt') for the market parameter and specifies constraints (max 300) plus default value (20) for the limit parameter, giving agents complete semantic context missing from the structured 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 market depth (order book/掛單簿) and displays bid/ask prices and quantities. This specific verb+resource combination effectively distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker (price statistics), get_public_trades (executed trades), and get_open_orders (user's personal orders).

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?

While the description implies this is a read-only market data tool (evident from '取得/get' and the return value description), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like get_ticker for price snapshots or get_public_trades for recent execution history. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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