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 only implicitly indicates this is a read operation via the term '查詢' (query), but provides no information on error handling (e.g., behavior when order not found), authentication requirements, rate limits, or caching behavior.

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 concise with zero redundancy. It front-loads the purpose statement followed by parameter documentation in standard docstring format. However, given the complete lack of schema descriptions, it could benefit from one additional sentence on prerequisites or error 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. For a 2-parameter query tool, the description covers the parameters adequately, but gaps remain regarding operational context such as authentication scope, error scenarios, or rate limiting that would help an agent invoke the tool confidently.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting both parameters: order_id is the system order ID, client_oid is the custom client order ID, and they are mutually exclusive. This provides sufficient semantic meaning for an agent to understand parameter usage.

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 '查詢單筆訂單詳情' (Query single order details) provides a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this from sibling list operations like get_open_orders or get_closed_orders. However, it does not differentiate from get_order_trades, which also retrieves order-related data.

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 explicit parameter-level guidance documenting that order_id and client_oid are mutually exclusive ('擇一' = choose one). However, it lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives like get_orders_history or get_open_orders for order retrieval.

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