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 states the tool retrieves a summary but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be needed, whether it's rate-limited, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks essential behavioral context for a tool that likely queries external data.

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 without unnecessary words. It directly communicates what the tool does and includes key parameter context, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the profitability summary includes, how results are formatted, or any behavioral traits like error handling or data freshness. Given the complexity of financial data retrieval, more context is needed for effective use.

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 three parameters. The description mentions the 'days' parameter and its purpose but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('profit and loss summary for a given wallet'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'evm_getwalletprofitability' or 'evm_getwalletnetworth', which appear to be related but distinct wallet analysis tools.

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 mentions a timeframe parameter but doesn't explain why one would choose this tool over similar siblings (e.g., 'evm_getwalletprofitability' or 'evm_getwalletnetworth'), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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