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 safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The only behavioral context provided is the scope limitation to internal transfers.

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 structured with a clear one-line purpose statement followed by compact parameter documentation. While the :param: format is slightly unconventional for MCP descriptions, it delivers information density 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional parameters, output schema exists), the description adequately covers input semantics but lacks behavioral context. Since an output schema is present, the absence of return value documentation is acceptable, though the missing safety/permission details prevent a higher score.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (only titles present), the description excellently compensates by documenting all four parameters inline using Sphinx-style syntax. It explains the currency filter, pagination defaults (50 items/page), and crucially defines the 'side' enum values ('in' for receiving, 'out' for payment) which are absent from the 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 internal transfer records ('取得平台內部轉帳記錄') and specifies the scope as transfers between MAX platform users ('MAX 用戶間互轉'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools handling external deposits/withdrawals (get_deposits, get_withdrawals) or margin transfers (get_m_transfers).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_m_transfers or how to handle pagination across large result sets. There are no explicit prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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