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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions retrieving unique owners but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, any rate limits, pagination behavior beyond the cursor parameter, or what the output format looks like. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 for its content, 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 querying NFT owners across multiple chains, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, error handling, and usage context, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional assumptions.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying the 'address' is for an NFT contract, which is somewhat redundant with the schema. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate parameter documentation primarily from the 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 resource ('unique wallet addresses owning NFTs from a contract'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like 'evm_gettokenholders' or 'evm_gethistoricaltokenholders', which might also retrieve wallet information related to tokens or NFTs.

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. With many sibling tools that involve wallets, NFTs, or token holders, there's no indication of specific use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons to help an agent choose appropriately.

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