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 the critical behavioral detail that the timestamp is in seconds (not milliseconds), which is essential for correct usage. However, it omits details about caching behavior or rate limiting.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the action and precisely specifies the output format without extraneous words.

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 this is a zero-parameter utility tool with an output schema present, the description is complete. It adequately describes what the tool returns (Unix timestamp), making it sufficient for agent selection and invocation.

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 tool has zero input parameters, which per guidelines establishes a baseline of 4. The empty schema is fully described (100% coverage), and no parameter semantics are needed in the description.

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 uses a specific verb (取得/get) and clearly identifies the resource (MAX server current time) and return format (Unix timestamp in seconds). It clearly distinguishes this utility function from the numerous trading-related siblings (submit_order, cancel_order, etc.).

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 purpose is clear, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or why one might need server time (e.g., for request timestamp synchronization). Usage is implied but not stated.

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