Moralis MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Gets NFTs') without detailing behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or what the output looks like. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a simple tool.

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 complexity of a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key contextual elements like output format, error conditions, or usage constraints. The agent would lack sufficient information to use this tool effectively without additional context or trial-and-error.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, thoroughly documenting all 6 parameters (e.g., 'network', 'address', 'nftMetadata'). The description does not add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or default behaviors. Given the high schema coverage, the 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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('NFTs owned by the given address'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'solana_getportfolio' or 'solana_getwalletnfts' (from the EVM context), which might offer similar functionality, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 NFT-related tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'solana_getnftmetadata' or 'solana_getportfolio'). It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific use cases, 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.