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. The pagination parameters (limit/page) imply list behavior and batching, but the description lacks explicit statements about read-only safety, rate limits, or empty result handling. Output schema exists, mitigating need for return value description.

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 three lines. No redundant text, though the Sphinx-style param documentation embedded in the description string is structurally suboptimal (belongs in schema 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?

Adequate for a simple pagination-based list tool with output schema present, but lacks critical context regarding the sibling 'get_m_liquidation' tool and any authentication/permission requirements given zero annotations.

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%, but the description compensates effectively by documenting both parameters in docstring format: limit as '每頁筆數' (items per page, default 50) and page as '頁碼' (page number, default 1). This adds necessary semantic meaning absent from the 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?

Clearly states the action (取得/get) and resource (M wallet liquidation history records). However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_m_liquidation' (singular), leaving ambiguity about whether this returns a list vs. a specific 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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, particularly the singular 'get_m_liquidation'. No mention of prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or pagination strategy beyond the parameter defaults.

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