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. It fails to indicate whether this is a public or authenticated endpoint, whether it is read-only, or any rate limiting concerns. It only states the functional output without behavioral context.

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the key verb and scope, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

While the output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values) and there are no parameters to document, the lack of annotations combined with no mention of authentication requirements or endpoint visibility leaves gaps. It is minimally viable for invocation but incomplete regarding operational context.

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?

The input schema contains zero parameters. According to the baseline rules, this warrants a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify beyond what the schema already indicates (empty object).

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 MAX 所有可用交易市場列表' clearly specifies the action (取得/get) and resource (交易市場列表/trading markets list), and distinguishes itself from siblings like get_currencies (currencies vs markets) and get_ticker (specific price data vs market list discovery).

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, nor does it indicate prerequisites such as authentication requirements or that it should be called before submit_order to discover valid market pairs.

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