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. It mentions 'get' (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination behavior (cursor usage), data freshness, or error conditions. The description is too minimal to inform the agent adequately about operational constraints.

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, compact sentence that directly states the tool's function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though the grammatical issues slightly reduce clarity. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient in length.

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 (7 parameters, historical data query) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., time-series data structure), pagination via 'cursor', or how 'timeFrame' interacts with date ranges. For a historical query tool with no structured output info, more context is needed.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying historical data retrieval (hinted by 'overtime'), which aligns with parameters like 'timeFrame', 'fromDate', and 'toDate'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 token holders overtime for a given tokens' states the purpose (retrieving historical token holders) but is grammatically awkward ('overtime' should be 'over time', 'tokens' is plural where singular might be intended). It distinguishes from siblings like 'solana_gettokenholders' (likely current holders) by implying historical data, but this distinction isn't explicitly stated.

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. For example, it doesn't clarify when to choose this over 'solana_gettokenholders' (presumably for current holders) or 'evm_gethistoricaltokenholders' (for EVM chains). The description alone offers no usage context or prerequisites.

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