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. It states the tool retrieves metadata but lacks details on behavioral traits such as rate limits, error handling, authentication needs, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety or operational hints.

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 with zero waste. It front-loads the core action ('Get the global token metadata') and includes essential details without redundancy, making it easy 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a simple query tool. It specifies the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and output details. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it meets minimum viability but could improve by adding usage or response information.

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 minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'network and contract' and listing metadata fields, but it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('global token metadata'), specifying the target (network and contract) and listing key metadata fields (mint, standard, name, symbol, metaplex). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'solana_gettokenprice' or 'solana_gettokenholders' by focusing on metadata retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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. While the description implies it's for token metadata, it doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or direct comparisons to similar tools like 'evm_gettokenmetadata' or 'solana_getnftmetadata', leaving the agent to infer context from tool names alone.

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