MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. Fails to indicate this is a read-only operation, lacks pagination behavior explanation beyond parameter names, and omits rate limits or error conditions. Output schema exists but safety profile is undisclosed.

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?

Extremely concise at 4 lines total. Purpose is front-loaded in the first line, followed by param documentation. No redundant text, though the :param docstring format is slightly informal for MCP descriptions.

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 an output schema and only 3 simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for an unannotated financial data retrieval tool, it should disclose read-only nature and pagination patterns to be complete.

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 (only titles), the description fully compensates by documenting all 3 parameters: currency filtering behavior (nullable for 'all'), limit (items per page, default 50), and page (default 1). Adds clear semantic meaning beyond the raw 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?

Description clearly states the action (取得/get) and specific resource (M wallet interest billing history records). While it doesn't explicitly name siblings, the specificity of 'interest billing history' effectively distinguishes it from related tools like get_m_interest_rates or get_m_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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to query specific currencies vs. all), nor mentions prerequisites or conditions. Only parameter syntax is documented.

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