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 of behavioral disclosure but fails to mention critical traits: irreversibility of withdrawals, fee structures, confirmation requirements, or processing delays. It only notes this is an 'application' (申請), hinting at a request workflow, but lacks safety warnings essential for a financial mutation tool.

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 :param docstring format efficiently organizes information across three lines with zero redundancy. The purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by structured parameter details. The format is technical but appropriate for the content density.

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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers input requirements. However, given the high-stakes nature of cryptocurrency withdrawals, the description is incomplete—it omits currency/asset specification methodology (likely implicit in the address UUID), fee disclosures, and minimum amount constraints that would aid agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage (only titles). The description fully compensates by providing clear semantics for both parameters: 'withdraw_address_uuid' includes prerequisite instructions to use get_withdraw_addresses, and 'amount' specifies the string format with a concrete example ('100').

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 '提交' (submit) and resource '加密貨幣提現申請' (cryptocurrency withdrawal application). It effectively distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'submit_twd_withdrawal' by explicitly specifying 'cryptocurrency' (加密貨幣) versus fiat currency.

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 provides explicit prerequisite guidance embedded in the parameter documentation: '先用 get_withdraw_addresses 取得' (first use get_withdraw_addresses to obtain). This correctly sequences the workflow. However, it lacks explicit contrast with 'submit_twd_withdrawal' regarding when to use crypto vs fiat withdrawal.

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