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. It successfully discloses pagination behavior ('分頁'), ordering logic ('依 ID 順序'), and cursor-based navigation ('from_id' for翻頁). However, it omits safety/permission disclosures (read-only status, rate limits) that would be essential for a data retrieval tool without annotation coverage.

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 efficiently structured with a one-line purpose statement followed by standard :param documentation. While the param lines add length, they are necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. No extraneous information 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?

With an output schema present, the description appropriately omits return value details. It covers all input parameters and explains pagination strategy. The only gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling order query tools (get_open_orders, get_closed_orders) in a crowded API surface.

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 (only titles present), the description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters with clear semantics: wallet_type explains the 'spot'/'m' enum values and default, market describes filtering behavior, from_id clarifies pagination usage, and limit specifies the return count default.

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 '依 ID 順序分頁取得訂單歷史' (paginates to get order history by ID order), providing a specific verb and resource. It adds context that it is '適合完整匯出' (suitable for complete export), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_closed_orders or get_open_orders.

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 implied usage guidance by noting it is suitable for '完整匯出' (complete export), suggesting when to use it. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives among the many sibling order-retrieval tools (get_open_orders, get_closed_orders, etc.).

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