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 successfully discloses critical behavioral context: the ratio calculation methodology (assets divided by loans) and the business logic significance (liquidation trigger when below threshold). It does not mention auth or rate limits, but the liquidation risk disclosure is the most essential behavioral trait for this financial tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence with two information-dense clauses: the retrieval action with formula clarification, and the liquidation consequence. No filler words or redundant explanations.

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 has zero parameters and an output schema exists (per context signals), the description appropriately focuses on explaining what the metric represents and its significance (liquidation risk) rather than return values. It provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when this specific margin metric is relevant.

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 contains zero parameters (empty object). Per evaluation rules, 0 parameters receives a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to describe beyond the schema structure.

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 the current AD ratio (資產/借貸 = assets/loans) for the M wallet, using a specific verb (取得/get) and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_m_loans or get_m_liquidation by focusing on the ratio calculation rather than the underlying loan records or liquidation events.

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 mention of liquidation thresholds (低於門檻會觸發清算) implies the tool is used for risk monitoring, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., 'use this before submitting a loan to check risk vs using get_m_limits').

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