Moralis 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 mentions 'ABI-decoded contents' which hints at parsing smart contract data, but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get'), error handling (e.g., for invalid hashes), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output includes (e.g., decoded function calls, events). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get the ABI-decoded contents of a transaction') and specifies the key input ('by the given transaction hash'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's moderate complexity (fetching and decoding transaction data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, or error conditions. With 100% schema coverage for inputs, it's complete enough for basic use but insufficient for full agent understanding without external knowledge.

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%, with all parameters well-documented in the schema itself (chain, transaction_hash, include). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the transaction_hash is used to fetch the transaction. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to given the comprehensive schema.

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 ('Get') and the resource ('ABI-decoded contents of a transaction'), specifying it's for a given transaction hash. It distinguishes from generic transaction lookups by mentioning ABI-decoded contents, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'evm_gettransaction' (if it existed) or other transaction-related tools in the list.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a transaction hash), compare it to other transaction tools (none are in the sibling list, but general context is missing), or specify use cases beyond the basic action. The agent must infer usage solely from the purpose statement.

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