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. While '取得' implies a read operation, the description lacks disclosure of error handling (e.g., invalid sn), idempotency, or return value structure despite the existence of an output schema.

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 with zero waste—one line stating purpose and one line documenting the parameter. Appropriately front-loaded, though the Python-docstring-style ':param' formatting is slightly less idiomatic than natural language 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?

For a single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the basics. However, it misses opportunity to mention the relationship to 'get_m_liquidations' for obtaining the serial number, which would help agents understand the workflow.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% (parameter only has title 'Sn'). The description compensates by documenting ':param sn: 清算序號' (liquidation serial number), clarifying the parameter's semantic meaning and data type context beyond the schema's type information.

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 '取得單筆 M 錢包清算詳情' provides a specific verb (取得/Get), resource (M wallet liquidation details), and scope (單筆/single record). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_m_liquidations' (plural) by emphasizing this retrieves a single record.

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 the plural alternative 'get_m_liquidations', or prerequisites such as obtaining the serial number (sn) from elsewhere. Lacks explicit when-to-use context.

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