MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: that this deducts funds from the account, whether the operation is reversible, idempotency characteristics, or if it requires confirmation. For a financial mutation tool, this safety information is absent.

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?

Efficiently structured with purpose front-loaded followed by Sphinx-style parameter documentation. While param docs in description text is unconventional for MCP (preferring schema descriptions), it is necessary given the schema's lack of descriptions. No wasted sentences.

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?

Adequate for a two-parameter tool with an output schema (which handles return value documentation). However, as a financial mutation operation, it lacks important context about side effects, transaction confirmation flow, or account balance requirements that would help an agent use this safely.

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 coverage. The description provides concrete examples ('usdt', '1000') and clarifies that amount is a string type (字串), adding semantic meaning entirely missing from the raw schema. Minor deduction for not specifying valid currency options or amount constraints.

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 action (還款/repayment) and target (M 錢包/M wallet), distinguishing it from siblings like submit_m_loan (borrowing) and submit_m_transfer (transferring). However, it assumes familiarity with what 'M' refers to without explicit definition.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active loan), or when repayment might fail. The description lacks operational context for the agent to determine appropriate invocation timing.

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