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 mentions 'Get' but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., paginated results due to cursor/limit parameters). This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, 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, no output schema, and a tool with 4 parameters (including pagination via cursor/limit), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the return format, pagination behavior, error conditions, or how 'supported pairs' are defined, leaving the agent with incomplete context for proper invocation.

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%, so the input schema already documents all parameters well. The description adds minimal value by implying the 'address' parameter is a token address, but doesn't clarify semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of address, what 'supported pairs' means). 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 action ('Get') and resource ('supported pairs for a specific token address'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'solana_getpairstats' or 'solana_getaggregatedtokenpairstats', which might offer similar functionality but with different scopes or outputs.

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 lacks context such as prerequisites (e.g., token address validity), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'solana_getpairstats', leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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