MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only documents parameter semantics. It fails to mention that this is a read-only operation, whether the data is real-time or cached, pagination behavior beyond parameter defaults, or any rate limiting considerations for historical data retrieval.

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 economically structured with a single purpose statement followed by inline parameter documentation in Python docstring style. There is no redundant text; every line serves either to declare the function or explain a parameter's behavior.

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?

The description adequately covers the input parameters given the existence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation). However, it lacks domain context about what 'M wallet' refers to and whether this retrieves active loans, closed loans, or both, leaving gaps for an agent trying to understand the full scope of the tool.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage (only titles like 'Currency'), the description effectively compensates by documenting all three parameters: currency filtering behavior (including empty-string handling), limit semantics (items per page), and page numbering. It clarifies the default values and their meanings, adding significant value beyond the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool retrieves 'M wallet loan history records' (借貸歷史記錄) using a specific verb-object structure. It distinguishes from sibling 'submit_m_loan' (creation) by specifying this retrieves historical records, though it could further clarify the difference from get_m_repayments or active position queries.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_m_limits (for checking limits) or get_m_liquidations (for liquidation history). There is no mention of prerequisites, such as requiring an existing M wallet, or when to prefer pagination versus filtering by currency.

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