Moralis MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what data is returned without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose error conditions (e.g., invalid address handling), rate limits, authentication needs, performance characteristics, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Gets' but not explicit).

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?

Single sentence efficiently conveys core purpose with zero wasted words. Front-loaded with the main action ('Gets'), followed by resource and key metadata fields. No structural issues or redundancy.

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 read operation with 3 parameters (2 required) and 100% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but lacks context. No output schema exists, so return format isn't described (e.g., JSON structure). It doesn't cover error cases, network-specific behaviors, or how 'mediaItems' affects output.

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 parameter context beyond implying the 'address' is for a contract and 'mediaItems' relates to media in metadata. Since schema does the heavy lifting, baseline 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 ('Gets') and the resource ('contract level metadata'), specifying what metadata fields are returned (mint, standard, name, symbol, metaplex). It distinguishes this as a Solana-specific tool from its sibling 'evm_getnftmetadata', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other Solana NFT tools like 'solana_getnfts' or 'solana_gettokenmetadata' in usage context.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid Solana NFT contract address), contrast with similar tools (e.g., 'solana_getnfts' for multiple NFTs vs. this for single contract metadata), or specify use cases (e.g., for verifying NFT collection details).

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