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 of behavioral disclosure. While '查詢' (query) implies a read-only operation, the description does not confirm idempotency, safety, error handling (e.g., invalid UUID), or authentication 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 extremely concise with no wasted words. The main purpose appears first, followed by parameter documentation. However, the use of Python-style docstring markup (:param) is slightly unconventional for MCP tool descriptions.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, it lacks context on error states, UUID format expectations, and differentiation from the batch retrieval sibling.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by including ':param uuid: 提現 UUID' which identifies the parameter as the withdrawal UUID, but uses docstring syntax rather than natural language. It does not provide format validation rules, examples, or constraints beyond the basic identifier.

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 queries a single withdrawal's details (查詢單筆提現詳情), distinguishing it from the plural 'get_withdrawals' via the word '單筆' (single). However, it does not explicitly reference sibling tools to clarify when to use this specific endpoint versus the list endpoint.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_withdrawals' (for listing) or 'submit_withdrawal' (for creating). There are no prerequisites mentioned, such as needing a valid UUID from a previous withdrawal.

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