MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. For a financial 'submit' operation, it fails to mention that this is a destructive/write action, whether it is reversible, fee implications, slippage risks, or failure modes (e.g., insufficient liquidity).

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 efficiently structured using inline parameter documentation. Every line serves a purpose: the first line establishes the action, and subsequent lines map parameters to semantics and constraints without redundancy.

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 financial transaction tool with an output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits operational context such as fee structures, balance validation, atomicity guarantees, or error conditions. While the output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description fails to explain the transaction semantics and risks inherent in a currency conversion operation.

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 by documenting all 4 parameters (from_currency as 'sell currency', to_currency as 'buy currency', etc.) and their mutual exclusivity constraint. However, it omits details like format constraints (numeric strings), valid value ranges, or the fact that amounts default to null.

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 opening line '執行幣種閃兌（即時換匯）' (Execute currency flash exchange/instant forex) provides a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like get_convert (read status) and submit_order (standard trading) by specifying the 'flash exchange' mechanism.

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?

The description documents the critical constraint that from_amount and to_amount are mutually exclusive ('二擇一' - choose one of two), which guides correct invocation. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this instant conversion versus submit_order for standard trading, or prerequisites like balance requirements.

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