MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions 'historical' nature implying read-only access to completed data, but lacks disclosure on auth requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, or data freshness guarantees.

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?

Front-loaded purpose statement followed by RST-style :param: documentation. While functional, the param syntax is slightly awkward for an MCP description field. No redundant sentences, though Chinese-English parameter mixing could be cleaner.

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?

Has output schema (per context signals) so return values need not be described. Parameters are documented in description text. However, lacks differentiation from similar trade-querying siblings and omits operational context like rate limiting or required authentication scope.

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?

Excellent compensation for 0% schema description coverage. Documents all 3 parameters: wallet_type enums ('spot'/'m'), market filtering behavior (empty for all), and limit default (50). Adds substantial meaning missing from the schema titles alone.

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?

States specific action '取得' (get/retrieve) and resource '個人歷史成交記錄' (personal historical transaction records). The qualifier '個人' (personal) distinguishes it from sibling get_public_trades, though it doesn't clarify distinction from get_order_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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_order_trades or get_public_trades. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned. The term 'historical' implies completed trades but doesn't explicitly direct users away from get_open_orders.

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