Moralis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a read-only operation (resolve) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., for invalid domains), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if the domain doesn't exist. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with zero waste. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear, direct language without unnecessary details.

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 incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., address format, null cases), error conditions, and behavioral context. Given the complexity of ENS resolution and the absence of structured data, more information 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%, with the parameter 'domain' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples (e.g., 'vitalik.eth') or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 verb 'resolve' and the resource 'ENS domain' with the outcome 'to its associated Ethereum address.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'evm_resolveaddress' by specifying domain resolution rather than address resolution, though it doesn't explicitly compare them.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evm_resolveaddress' or other sibling tools. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid ENS domain, or when this tool is appropriate compared to other resolution methods.

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