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 discloses pagination behavior (limit/page parameters) and filtering capabilities, including default values (50, 1). However, it fails to explicitly state this is a read-only operation, mention rate limits, or describe the output structure despite having an output schema available.

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 appropriately compact with the purpose stated first, followed by parameter documentation. No extraneous information is included. The :param notation is efficient but slightly unconventional 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 primitive parameters, no nesting) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context for invocation. It covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics needed for correct usage.

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, the description compensates by documenting all three parameters: currency filtering behavior ('篩選幣種；留空查全部'), limit as items per page ('每頁筆數'), and page as page number ('頁碼'), including default values. This effectively bridges the schema gap, though the :param format is less formal than schema descriptions.

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 ('取得') M wallet fund transfer records, identifying the specific resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'submit_m_transfer' (get vs. submit) and 'get_internal_transfers' by specifying 'M wallet', though it could further clarify what 'M wallet' means in this context.

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 similar alternatives like 'get_internal_transfers' or 'get_deposits'. It lacks prerequisites or conditions for selection.

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