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 but offers minimal insight. 'Get all snipers' implies a read-only operation but doesn't clarify what 'snipers' entails, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or response format. The description fails to compensate for the lack of annotations, leaving critical behavioral traits undefined.

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 extremely concise ('Get all snipers.'), which is efficient but borders on under-specification. It's front-loaded but lacks substance; every word earns its place, yet more detail is needed for clarity. The brevity is a strength in structure but a weakness in informativeness.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'snipers' are, the tool's purpose, usage context, or expected outputs. For a tool with moderate parameter count and no structured support, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 67%, with two parameters well-described ('network' and 'pairAddress') and one undocumented ('blocksAfterCreation'). The description adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, not explaining what 'blocksAfterCreation' means or how parameters interact. Given the partial coverage, the baseline score reflects that the schema does some work, but the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 all snipers' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without providing meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'snipers' are in this context (likely automated trading bots or similar), what resource is being accessed, or how this differs from sibling tools like 'evm_getsnipersbypairaddress' or other Solana tools.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools (e.g., 'solana_getswapsbypairaddress' or 'evm_getsnipersbypairaddress'), leaving the agent with no information to make an informed selection.

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