Moralis MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but lacks critical behavioral details. It mentions 'complete decoded transaction history' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior (implied by 'cursor' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description adds minimal context beyond basic functionality, leaving gaps for a tool with 11 parameters.

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 complete decoded transaction history for a given wallet') and adds clarifying details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse while conveying key features like decoding and summarization.

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?

For a complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return format, error conditions, or behavioral constraints like rate limits. While concise, it fails to provide the necessary context for safe and effective use, especially given the lack of structured metadata.

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 fully documents all 11 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'address' parameter is required and that results are 'human-readable'. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without adding value.

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 with specific verbs ('get', 'parsed', 'decoded', 'categorized', 'summarized') and resource ('complete decoded transaction history for a given wallet'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like evm_gettransactionverbose (single transaction) or evm_gettokentransfers (token-specific) by emphasizing comprehensive wallet history with human-readable summaries.

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 sibling tools like evm_getwalletnfts (NFT-specific) or evm_getwalletstats (statistical summary), nor does it specify prerequisites such as wallet address format or chain compatibility. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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