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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that results include metadata, floor prices, and more, but fails to describe critical behaviors: pagination (implied by 'cursor' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. For a read operation with 7 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key result attributes. It's front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every phrase ('on-chain metadata as well as off-chain metadata, floor prices and more') adds useful context without redundancy.

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's complexity (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and result types but lacks critical context: no output format details, no pagination explanation, no error or limit behaviors. It meets the bare minimum for a read operation but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 7 parameters. The description adds marginal value by implying the scope ('all NFT Collections') and hinting at result content ('on-chain metadata, off-chain metadata, floor prices'), but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or usage examples beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('all NFT Collections held by a specified wallet address'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'evm_getwalletnfts' (which fetches individual NFTs) and 'evm_getnftcollectionstats' (which fetches stats for specific collections). It precisely defines the scope as collections rather than individual tokens.

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' (for individual NFTs) or 'evm_getnftcollectionstats' (for collection statistics), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the purpose statement.

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