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. It identifies the operation as a withdrawal submission but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as irreversibility, immediate fund deduction, potential fees, or required authorization levels.

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 concise with two efficient lines: the first states the purpose, the second documents the parameter. No redundant information is present.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema exists (relieving the description from detailing return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of behavioral details and absence of annotations leaves gaps for a financial transaction tool.

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 effectively compensates by providing the semantic meaning ('withdrawal amount'), data type clarification ('string'), and a concrete example ('10000') for the single parameter.

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 (submit/request) and resource (Taiwan Dollar/TWD withdrawal). It implicitly distinguishes from the generic 'submit_withdrawal' sibling by specifying the TWD currency, though it doesn't explicitly state when to choose one over the other.

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?

While the TWD specificity implies usage context, there is no explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., requiring withdrawal addresses), when to use this versus the generic 'submit_withdrawal', or conditions for successful invocation.

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