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 of behavioral disclosure. While '取得' (get/retrieve) implies a read-only operation, there is no information about idempotency, rate limits, data retention periods, or the nature of the repayment records returned 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?

The description is compact and uses structured Sphinx-style param documentation. Every line serves a purpose: one line for the tool's function, three lines for parameter semantics. No redundant or filler text.

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 presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation) and only three simple parameters, the description covers the basics adequately. However, it lacks context about what 'M wallet' refers to (likely margin) and doesn't mention that this is historical/read-only data, which would be helpful given the 30+ sibling tools.

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 (titles only), the description effectively compensates by documenting all three parameters: currency as a filter that can be empty for all results, limit as items per page, and page as the page number. It also clarifies default values (50, 1) that appear in the schema but gains semantic meaning from the text.

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 錢包還款歷史記錄' (M wallet repayment history records), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like get_m_loans or submit_m_repayment in the description text itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_m_loans for active loans vs. repayment history), nor any mention of prerequisites or conditions. The description only covers parameter usage.

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