MAX Exchange MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: that this is a state-mutating operation creating financial obligations, that client_oid serves idempotency purposes, rate limits, or fund locking behavior. Only parameter-level constraints are documented.

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?

Uses structured :param format that is scannable and front-loads the purpose statement. Slightly verbose due to repetition of 'param' keyword, but every sentence earns its place by documenting constraints not present in the schema.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing description burden for returns), the description lacks critical operational context for an 8-parameter financial tool: no mention of order lifecycle, error conditions, or the relationship between this tool and get_open_orders/cancel_order siblings. Parameter docs are thorough but operational context is thin.

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 description coverage. The description provides examples (market: 'btcusdt'), enumerated values (side: 'buy'/'sell'), defaults (ord_type defaults to 'limit'), conditional requirements (stop_price required for stop orders), and format constraints (client_oid max 36 chars) that the schema completely 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 '提交買賣訂單' (Submit buy/sell order) with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from read-only siblings (get_*) and indicates trading functionality via wallet_type parameter ('spot' or 'm'), though it could better differentiate from other submission tools like submit_convert or submit_withdrawal.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., submit_convert for currency conversion), prerequisites (sufficient balance), or workflow (create order → check status → potentially cancel). The sibling cancel_order is not mentioned as a reversal mechanism.

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