Tatum MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it mentions the API cost ('50 credit per API call'), response behavior ('return true if provided wallet address owns them... false and status code is 200'), and supports checking specific NFTs with tokenId. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, which are common for API tools.

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 somewhat front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes extraneous information like the note for v3 API users and a detailed list of blockchains that could be summarized. Sentences like 'It is also possible to check if wallet address owns a specific NFT by specifying a tokenId' are useful but could be integrated more efficiently. Overall, it's informative but not optimally concise.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, usage, and some behavioral aspects but lacks details on output format beyond true/false, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. Without an output schema, more explanation of return values would be beneficial, but the description does provide enough context for basic use.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining that tokenAddress can be for 'any fungible token, NFT or multitoken collection' and that tokenId is for 'a specific NFT token,' but it doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or constraints beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It also lists supported chain values, which helps but doesn't fully compensate for the schema's already comprehensive coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'Check if wallet address owns any specified token (ERC-20, ERC-721 or ERC-1155) on the following blockchains...' It specifies the exact action (check ownership), resources (tokens on specific blockchains), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_balances_v4 or get_owners_v4 by focusing on ownership verification of specific tokens rather than retrieving balances or owners.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to verify token ownership for specific blockchains, token types, and addresses. It mentions prerequisites ('To get started: Provide a chain name, wallet address and address of any fungible token...') but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools, though the specificity implies alternatives like get_balances_v4 for broader balance checks.

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