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 only states what the tool does ('Get the token bonding status') without describing what 'bonding status' means, what format the response takes, whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'token bonding status' means in practical terms, what data structure to expect in response, or how this differs from similar sibling tools. The agent would struggle to understand when and how to use this tool 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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'network and contract (if relevant)', which loosely maps to the 'network' and 'address' parameters. However, it doesn't clarify what 'contract (if relevant)' means or provide additional context about parameter usage.

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 states the tool's purpose as 'Get the token bonding status', which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'solana_getbondingtokensbyexchange' or 'solana_getgraduatedtokensbyexchange', leaving ambiguity about what specifically differentiates this tool. The phrase 'for a given network and contract (if relevant)' adds some context but doesn't fully clarify the 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 mentions network and contract parameters but doesn't explain what scenarios require this tool over similar siblings like 'solana_getbondingtokensbyexchange'. There's no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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