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 cross-chain support, filtering, and sorting options, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (despite a 'limit' parameter), error handling, or what the output looks like. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey key information: the search functionality and additional options. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating cross-chain behavior from filtering/sorting, but overall it's concise and effective.

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 (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the search scope and some behavioral traits but misses details like output format, pagination, and error handling. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a basic understanding, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'chains' filtering and 'sortBy' options, but doesn't provide additional context like examples or usage tips. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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: 'Search for tokens using their contract address, pair address, name, or symbol.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('tokens') with search criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'evm_getfilteredtokens' or 'evm_getdiscoverytoken', which appear related, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 some implied usage context by mentioning 'cross-chain by default' and the ability to filter by chains and sort by metrics. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'evm_getfilteredtokens' or 'evm_gettrendingtokensv2', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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