MAX Exchange MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains filtering logic (empty values query all) and pagination defaults, but fails to indicate this is a read-only operation, mention rate limits, or describe auth requirements.

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 the purpose statement first, followed by param documentation in docstring format. No redundant text; every line provides actionable 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 4-parameter schema and existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers inputs. However, gaps remain in usage context and safety disclosure (read-only status) that should be addressed when no annotations are present.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by documenting all 4 parameters: reward_type and currency explain filtering behavior with null handling, while limit and page specify pagination defaults (50 and 1 respectively).

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 reward records (取得獎勵記錄) and provides specific examples (rebates, airdrops, interest rewards) that define the scope, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_deposits or get_trades.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_trades for trading history or get_deposits for deposit history). There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or 'see also' references to related tools.

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