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 that the tool returns 'on-chain metadata as well as off-chain metadata, floor prices, rarity and more where available,' which adds useful context about the richness of the response. However, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by the 'cursor' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and follows with a specific usage tip and details about the response content. Every sentence earns its place by adding value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It adequately covers the purpose and hints at response richness but lacks details on output structure, pagination, error cases, or performance considerations. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured output documentation, more contextual information would be needed for an agent to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the 'token_addresses' parameter for filtering, but it doesn't provide additional semantic context (e.g., explaining what 'normalizeMetadata' entails or how 'include_prices' affects results). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('all NFTs held by a specified wallet address'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'evm_getwalletnftcollections' (which focuses on collections rather than individual NFTs) and 'evm_getmultiplenfts' (which likely operates differently).

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 the tool ('Fetch all NFTs held by a specified wallet address') and includes a specific usage tip ('Use `token_addresses` to filter by one or many specific contract(s)'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for different scenarios, such as when only metadata is needed (e.g., 'evm_getnftmetadata').

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