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 'gets' data (implying a read-only operation) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps. The description doesn't contradict annotations, but it's insufficient for a mutation-free tool with complex inputs.

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 front-loads the core purpose. There's zero wasted verbiage or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward data retrieval tool, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the output looks like (e.g., balance formats, token lists), how to handle large result sets, or error scenarios. For a portfolio tool that likely returns structured financial data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it effectively.

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 the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the 'address' parameter is central. It doesn't explain relationships between parameters (e.g., how 'nftMetadata' and 'mediaItems' interact) or provide usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('all the native and token balances of the given address'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'solana_balance' (which likely only gets native balance) and 'solana_getnfts' (which focuses on NFTs), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The purpose is specific but could be more precise about scope.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'solana_balance' for native-only balances or 'solana_getnfts' for NFT-specific queries. There's no context about prerequisites, performance implications, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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