Moralis 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. It states the tool lists wallets based on profitability but fails to explain how profitability is calculated, what data is returned (e.g., format, fields like profit amount or wallet addresses), or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, data freshness). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of analyzing wallet profitability, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, calculation methodology, or potential constraints, leaving the agent with incomplete information to effectively use the tool in context.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all parameters (address, days, chain) with descriptions and enums. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond implying the 'address' is for an ERC20 token and 'days' relates to profitability calculation timeframe, which is already covered in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('List') and the target ('most profitable wallets that have traded a specific ERC20 token'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'evm_getwalletprofitability' or 'evm_getswapsbytokenaddress', which might provide related but different functionality, preventing a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as sibling tools for profitability or token trading analysis. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the purpose alone.

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