MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds valuable temporal context by specifying 'currently available' (目前可用), implying real-time data. However, it lacks other behavioral disclosures such as whether the operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires specific permissions.

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 phrase with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action verb and maintains focus solely on the tool's purpose.

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 low complexity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema to define return values, the description is sufficiently complete. It identifies the specific financial instrument (M wallet lending limit) clearly, though it could benefit from explicitly noting it is a safe read operation.

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 accepts zero parameters, which triggers the baseline score of 4. The input schema is empty and correctly reflects this, requiring no additional semantic clarification from the description.

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 uses a specific verb (取得/get) and clearly identifies the resource as the M wallet's current available lending limit (M 錢包目前可用借貸額度上限). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like get_m_loans (which retrieves existing loans) by focusing on the credit limit/capacity rather than active debt.

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 states what the tool retrieves but provides no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It does not indicate that this should be checked before using submit_m_loan, nor does it contrast with get_m_ad_ratio or other M-wallet balance tools.

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