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. While it mentions that 'Results are categorised into 3 arrays,' it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what happens with invalid queries, whether there are rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like beyond the three array categories.

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 extremely concise with just two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output structure. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no unnecessary elaboration or 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?

For a search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what types of queries are supported, what the result arrays contain, whether there's pagination, error handling, or any behavioral constraints. The categorization mention is helpful but doesn't compensate for the lack of output details and behavioral context.

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 already documents both parameters ('query' and 'limit') adequately. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as query format examples or limit usage guidelines. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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: 'Find entities, organizations, addresses or wallets linked to blockchain addresses.' It specifies the verb ('Find') and resources ('entities, organizations, addresses or wallets'), and mentions the result categorization. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'evm_searchtokens' or 'evm_resolveaddress', which appear to serve related but distinct purposes.

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. With many sibling tools like 'evm_searchtokens', 'evm_resolveaddress', and 'evm_getentity', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over those other search/resolution tools.

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