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 the output includes 'first and last seen timestamps' and cross-chain querying, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or pagination. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond basic functionality.

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 concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and a key parameter option. There is no wasted text, but it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating core functionality from parameter guidance.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that returns wallet activity data. It lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of the list, timestamp formats), error cases, or any behavioral constraints like rate limits. This makes it inadequate for full contextual understanding, especially compared to sibling tools that might have richer descriptions.

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 100% description coverage, with clear docs for 'address' and 'chains' parameters. The description adds minimal value by hinting at cross-chain querying with 'chains', but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states (e.g., format details or usage examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'List the blockchain networks a wallet is active on, including their first and last seen timestamps.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('blockchain networks'), and scope ('a wallet is active on'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'evm_getwallethistory' or 'evm_getwalletstats', which might overlap in wallet-related queries.

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 by mentioning 'Options to query cross-chain using the `chains` parameter,' which suggests when to use this parameter for filtering. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'evm_getwallethistory' for transaction history) or any exclusions, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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