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 for behavioral disclosure. It states what data is retrieved but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by cursor parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a data retrieval tool and front-loads the essential information about what transactions are retrieved and for what resource.

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 tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the response structure, pagination behavior, or operational constraints. While the schema covers parameters well, the description fails to provide the contextual information needed to use this tool effectively in practice.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions 'pair address' which is already covered, but provides no additional context about parameter interactions, defaults, or usage patterns.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('all swap related transactions') with specific scope ('for a specific pair address'), listing the exact transaction types included (buy, sell, add liquidity, remove liquidity). It distinguishes from sibling tools like solana_getswapsbytokenaddress and solana_getswapsbywalletaddress by specifying it's for pair addresses rather than token or wallet addresses.

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. While it implicitly indicates this is for pair addresses, it doesn't mention when to choose this over other swap-related tools like solana_getswapsbytokenaddress or solana_getswapsbywalletaddress, nor does it discuss prerequisites or limitations.

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