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 statistics, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, authentication requirements, data freshness, or error conditions. The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, though it could be slightly more specific about what 'activity' entails to improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 2 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about the return format (what specific statistics are included), behavioral constraints, or usage context. The absence of annotations and output schema means the description should do more to compensate, but it only meets the minimum viable threshold.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('chain' and 'address') clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, such as explaining what 'key statistics' specifically include or how the 'activity' metric is calculated. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('retrieve') and resource ('key statistics for a wallet'), and provides examples ('total transaction count and activity'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'evm_getwallethistory' or 'evm_getwalletnetworth' by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than detailed history or net worth calculations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies usage for wallet statistics, it doesn't mention when to choose it over similar tools like 'evm_getwalletprofitability' or 'evm_getwalletactivechains', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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