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 disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the authentication requirements (public access, no login needed) but omits other behavioral traits such as rate limits, data freshness windows, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 optimally concise with three efficient lines: one for purpose/scoping, two for parameter documentation. The Sphinx-style :param format provides clear structure without verbosity, and every line conveys critical information.

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 simple two-parameter structure and the existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the authentication boundary and parameter semantics. A minor gap remains in explicitly differentiating from 'get_trades' regarding private vs. public data access.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates using :param syntax. It documents both parameters: 'market' includes an example ('btcusdt'), and 'limit' includes the default value (30). This adds essential semantic meaning missing from the bare schema titles.

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 recent public trade records for a market, using specific verb (取得/get) and resource (公開成交記錄/public trade records). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_trades' by emphasizing 'public' and 'no login required' (無需登入), though it could more explicitly contrast with authenticated alternatives.

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 includes 'no login required' (無需登入), which implicitly guides usage toward public/unauthenticated scenarios. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use guidance comparing it against 'get_trades' or 'get_order_trades', and does not mention prerequisites like valid market IDs.

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