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. The verb '取得' (get/obtain) implies a read-only operation, but the description omits pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether the data is real-time vs. cached. Given the presence of an output schema, the lack of behavioral context is a notable gap.

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 no wasted words. The docstring-style format (:param) is functional if unconventional for MCP descriptions. The one-sentence purpose statement followed by parameter definitions creates a clear, scannable structure.

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 retrieval tool with an output schema (handling return value documentation) and only two parameters, the description covers the parameter semantics adequately. However, it lacks behavioral context and high-level usage guidance that would make it complete, leaving it at minimum viable adequacy.

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 schema has 0% description coverage (only titles), but the description effectively compensates by explaining both parameters and their critical relationship: that they are mutually exclusive identifiers (訂單 ID vs. 自訂訂單 ID) and one must be chosen. This adds essential semantic meaning absent from the structured schema.

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 trade details (成交明細) for a specific order (特定訂單), using a specific verb and resource. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like `get_order` (order status vs. trade fills) and `get_trades` (general trades vs. specific order trades), though the null title slightly detracts from perfect clarity.

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?

While the description documents that `order_id` and `client_oid` are mutually exclusive (擇一), it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like `get_trades` or `get_order`, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing a valid order ID first.

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