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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'list' and pagination parameters (cursor, limit), implying a read-only, paginated query, but doesn't specify rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what 'bonding tokens' means operationally. This leaves significant behavioral gaps for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter guidance (e.g., undefined 'exchange' format), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'bonding tokens' are, how results are structured, or error handling, leaving the agent with critical gaps for effective tool 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 75% (3 of 4 parameters have descriptions), providing a solid baseline. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the 'exchange' parameter format or clarify 'bonding tokens' context. With high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get the list') and resource ('bonding tokens by given exchange'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'solana_getgraduatedtokensbyexchange' or 'solana_getnewtokensbyexchange', which would require more specific scope details.

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. With sibling tools like 'solana_getgraduatedtokensbyexchange' and 'solana_getnewtokensbyexchange' available, the description offers no context about what distinguishes bonding tokens from graduated or new tokens, leaving the agent without selection criteria.

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