MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, forcing the description to carry full behavioral disclosure burden, yet it omits safety properties (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or return value structure. While '取得' implies a read operation, the lack of explicit behavioral traits for financial data creates uncertainty.

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 compact with a clear single-sentence purpose followed by concise parameter documentation. The docstring format is slightly less scannable than prose but efficiently conveys the necessary information without waste.

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?

While the presence of an output schema reduces the description's burden for return values, the tool lacks differentiation from its singular sibling 'get_withdrawal' and omits valid filter values for the state parameter, leaving operational gaps for an AI agent.

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 compensates effectively by documenting all four parameters: currency filtering, pagination defaults (limit/page), and state filtering. However, it fails to specify valid enum values for the 'state' parameter or currency code formats.

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 withdrawal history records using the specific verb '取得' (get/retrieve). However, it fails to differentiate from the singular sibling tool 'get_withdrawal', leaving ambiguity about whether this returns a list versus a single record.

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 regarding when to use this tool versus the singular 'get_withdrawal' or 'get_withdraw_addresses'. There are no prerequisites, authentication requirements, or pagination strategy recommendations mentioned.

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