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. It mentions the return limit constraint (最多 1000) and filtering behavior, but lacks information on authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, or cache characteristics. The term '取得' (get/fetch) implies read-only access, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 uses efficient Sphinx-style :param: documentation that is appropriately front-loaded. Every sentence serves a purpose—one line for the core function, followed by structured parameter definitions. No redundant or wasteful text is present.

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?

For a 3-parameter listing tool with an output schema (which obviates the need to describe return values), the description is quite complete. All parameters are documented and the scope (unexecuted orders only) is clear. The only gap is the lack of differentiation from the numerous sibling order-related 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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description excellently compensates by documenting all three parameters with complete semantics: wallet_type clarifies valid values ('spot' or 'm') and default, market provides an example ('btcusdt') and null behavior, and limit specifies bounds (max 1000) and default (50).

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 '目前未成交的掛單列表' (currently unexecuted/open orders list), providing a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish from siblings like get_closed_orders, get_order, or get_orders_history, which could help the agent select the correct tool for order state filtering.

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 such as get_closed_orders (for filled/cancelled orders) or get_order (for specific order lookup). No prerequisites or exclusion criteria are mentioned, leaving the agent without selection context.

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