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. The term 'bound' (已綁定) adds valuable context indicating these are whitelisted/verified addresses, but the description omits output format details, pagination behavior, and whether addresses can expire or be unbound through other operations despite the presence of an output schema.

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 compact and front-loaded, consisting of a single clear phrase followed by parameter documentation. Minor deduction for using ':param:' docstring syntax which is slightly unconventional for MCP tool descriptions, though still readable.

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?

For a single-parameter list retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It compensates for the parameter's lack of schema documentation but could strengthen completeness by clarifying the relationship to withdrawal submission workflows or addressing pagination limits.

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 description effectively compensates for 0% schema description coverage by documenting the currency parameter in the docstring-style note, explaining it filters by currency (e.g., 'btc') and that leaving it empty returns all currencies. This adds essential semantics missing from the schema's bare 'title': 'Currency'.

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 it retrieves a list of 'bound withdrawal addresses' (已綁定的提現地址列表), specifying both the resource (withdrawal addresses) and their state (bound/verified). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the singular 'get_deposit_address' or explain what distinguishes a 'bound' address from a temporary one.

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 siblings like 'get_withdrawals' (which retrieves transaction history) or 'get_deposit_address'. It fails to mention prerequisites such as authentication requirements or that this tool is typically used before 'submit_withdrawal' to verify available destination addresses.

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