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 the action ('Get the summary') without explaining what 'summary' includes (e.g., count, distribution, top holders), whether it's read-only, performance characteristics, or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes redundant phrasing ('token token') and lacks efficiency. It could be more concise (e.g., 'Get holder summary for a Solana token') without losing clarity, but it's not overly verbose.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is incomplete for effective use. The description doesn't clarify what 'summary' means, how results are structured, or limitations, making it inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's behavior fully. This is particularly problematic for a data-fetching tool with siblings.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('network' and 'address'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, 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 states the tool's purpose ('Get the summary of holders for a given token') with a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('holders'), but it's vague about what 'summary' entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'solana_gethistoricaltokenholders' or 'solana_gettopholders'. The phrasing 'token token' is redundant and slightly confusing.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and parameters alone. This is a significant gap for a tool with siblings that handle similar data.

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