Moralis MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'paginated' implies a multi-page result structure, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral details: what defines 'top' holders (by balance? by percentage?), what the response format looks like, whether there are rate limits, or what authentication might be required. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward query tool and front-loads the essential information.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes 'top' holders, what the return data structure looks like, or how pagination works in practice. The agent would need to guess about the response format and ranking criteria despite having all parameters documented in the schema.

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 schema already documents all four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain what type of 'address' is expected (mint address? token account?), what 'cursor' format to use, or how 'limit' interacts with pagination. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 paginated top holders') and resource ('for a given token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this Solana-specific tool from its sibling 'solana_gettokenholders' or 'evm_gettokenholders', which would require explicit comparison to achieve a perfect score.

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. With multiple sibling tools for token holders (both Solana and EVM variants), there's no indication of what makes 'top holders' distinct from regular holders or when pagination is necessary versus other holder queries.

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