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 mentions 'Gets' which implies a read operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (hinted by 'cursor' parameter), or what happens if parameters are invalid. This is a significant gap for a tool with 8 parameters and no output schema.

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, front-loading the core purpose. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a straightforward name, though it could benefit from more detail given the complexity implied by the parameters.

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 tool's complexity (8 parameters, 6 required, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or behavioral traits, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter input.

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 description adds no parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 8 parameters. The baseline is 3 because the schema does all the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't compensate with any additional context, such as explaining the relationship between parameters like 'address' and 'pair address'.

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 'Gets the candlesticks for a specific pair address' clearly states the verb ('Gets') and resource ('candlesticks'), but it's vague about what 'candlesticks' are (likely financial chart data) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'solana_getpairstats' or 'evm_getpaircandlesticks', which might serve similar purposes. It's adequate but lacks specificity.

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, such as other candlestick-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'evm_getpaircandlesticks'). It only states what it does, without context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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