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 that it 'Returns data for all chains in a single request,' which adds useful context about scope and efficiency. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or the format/structure of the returned data, which are important for a tool with no output schema.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently add context about multi-chain returns. Every word contributes value without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 no parameters (simplifying input) but also no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers what data is retrieved and the multi-chain scope, but it lacks details on behavioral aspects like performance, errors, or data format, which are needed for full agent understanding.

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 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is applied since there are no parameters to document.

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 verb 'Retrieve' and specifies the resources: 'volume, active wallets and transaction stats for a blockchain over various time periods.' It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on aggregated blockchain statistics rather than specific entities or transactions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'evm_gettimeseriesvolume' or 'evm_getwalletstats'.

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 implies usage for retrieving aggregated blockchain statistics over time periods, which suggests when to use it. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool versus alternatives like 'evm_gettimeseriesvolume' or 'evm_getwalletstats', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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