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 states it's a read operation ('Get'), implying no destructive effects, but fails to mention pagination behavior (cursor and limit parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output format looks like. 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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'graduated tokens' are, how results are structured, or provide usage context. This leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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%, with three of four parameters having descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying what 'exchange' refers to or how 'graduated tokens' relate to the parameters. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema does most of the work.

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 'Get the list of graduated tokens by given exchange' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('graduated tokens'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'graduated tokens' means in this context. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'solana_getnewtokensbyexchange' or 'solana_getbondingtokensbyexchange', leaving ambiguity about the specific type of tokens being retrieved.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, such as what constitutes a valid exchange parameter, or contrast it with similar tools like 'solana_getnewtokensbyexchange' for new tokens or 'solana_getbondingtokensbyexchange' for bonding tokens.

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