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. It successfully explains the directional semantics of the transfer (into vs out of M wallet), but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: whether the operation is idempotent, requires sufficient balance, is irreversible, or carries financial risk. Given this is a financial mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with a clear one-line summary followed by structured :param documentation. While the parameter docs are efficiently packed with examples, the inline code-documentation style slightly reduces readability compared to natural language prose, though it remains highly functional.

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 existence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description appropriately avoids duplicating return value documentation. However, for a 3-parameter financial mutation tool with zero annotations, the description should include prerequisites (sufficient balance) or safety warnings (irreversible transaction) to be considered complete.

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 (only titles provided), the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with clear semantics and concrete examples: currency ('usdt'), amount format (string '500'), and side enum values ('in'/'out' with directional meanings). This provides exactly the information the schema lacks.

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 specific action (transfer funds) and the exact resources involved (spot wallet and M wallet). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like 'submit_withdrawal' (external transfers) and 'submit_m_loan' (borrowing) by specifying this is a balance transfer between internal wallets.

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 parameter documentation for 'side' ('in' vs 'out') implies the usage pattern for transferring in each direction. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_m_loan' for borrowing needs, or workflow prerequisites like checking balances first.

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