Moralis MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a calculation/query tool (implied read-only, non-destructive), supports cross-chain queries via the 'chains' parameter, and offers filtering for accuracy (exclude spam, low-liquidity, inactive tokens). However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions, which are gaps for a tool with 6 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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose and key option (exclude spam), the second adds cross-chain capability and additional filtering options. Every phrase adds value, though it could be slightly more front-loaded by merging the two sentences for immediate clarity.

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 (6 parameters, cross-chain queries, filtering logic) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose and key features but doesn't explain the return format (e.g., USD value breakdown, token list), performance expectations, or error handling, which are important for a net worth calculation tool.

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 6 parameters. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the 'chains' parameter for cross-chain querying and the purpose of excluding spam tokens, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema already specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('calculate the total net worth'), target resource ('of a wallet in USD'), and key capabilities ('with options to exclude spam tokens for accuracy', 'query cross-chain'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'evm_getwallettokenbalancesprice' (which focuses on token balances/prices) and 'solana_getportfolio' (which is chain-specific) by emphasizing comprehensive net worth calculation across chains with filtering options.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for calculating wallet net worth with accuracy options (excluding spam, low-liquidity, inactive tokens) and cross-chain querying. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many siblings, but the purpose naturally differentiates it from tools focused on NFTs, transactions, or token-specific analytics.

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