MAX Exchange MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, and the description carries the full burden but discloses no behavioral traits. It does not indicate caching behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or that this is a read-only operation (though implied by '取得').

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb, no redundant words. Appropriate length for a parameterless retrieval 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?

While the output schema exists to define return values, the description lacks behavioral context that annotations would normally provide (read-only, safe). For a tool with zero parameters, the description is minimally sufficient but could indicate the read-only nature given no annotations exist.

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 tool has zero input parameters, establishing a baseline score of 4. No parameter documentation is required or provided.

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 action (取得/get) and specific resource (M錢包各幣種指數價格/M wallet currency index prices). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'M wallet' context and 'index prices' versus general tickers or loans.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_ticker, get_tickers, or get_markets. The description only states what the tool does, not when to prefer it over sibling price-retrieval tools.

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