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. It discloses parameter constraints (max 10000 for limit, valid period values) but lacks information on rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data ordering (chronological vs reverse). The output schema handles return format disclosure.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose statement followed by inline parameter documentation. Every line provides essential information with no redundancy or filler content.

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?

For a 3-parameter data retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It documents all parameters and their constraints. It could be improved by noting the time range covered (recent N periods vs historical range) but this is acceptable given the output schema handles return structure.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting all three parameters using :param notation—providing an example for market ('btcusdt'), enumerated valid values for period, and bounds for limit. This adequately covers the semantic gaps in 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 it retrieves market K-line (candlestick) data using the specific term 'K 線（蠟燭圖）', which distinguishes it from siblings like get_ticker or get_trades. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate when to use this versus other historical data endpoints like get_trades.

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 sibling market data tools (get_ticker, get_depth, get_trades, get_public_trades). There are no prerequisites, conditions, or 'when-not-to-use' warnings specified.

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