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 of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates several important behavioral traits: the tool is deprecated (important lifecycle information), it costs '50 credits per API call' (resource consumption), it supports multiple blockchains and token types, it includes metadata in responses by default (with option to exclude), and it has specific limitations for Tezos blockchain. It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements, but covers substantial behavioral context.

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 front-loaded with critical information (deprecation notice and alternative), but becomes somewhat verbose in listing all supported blockchains. The technical details about Tezos behavior and query parameter limitations could be more streamlined. While most content is relevant, the structure could be improved for better scannability, and some redundancy exists in the blockchain listing.

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 complexity (6 parameters, multiple blockchain support, deprecation status) and absence of both annotations and output schema, the description provides substantial context. It covers purpose, deprecation status, supported networks, token types, basic usage, and some behavioral traits. The main gap is the lack of information about response format or structure, which would be important since there's no output schema. However, it compensates well with practical implementation guidance.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some semantic context: it explains that addresses should be 'comma-separated' and mentions the 'excludeMetadata' parameter's effect. However, it doesn't provide significant additional meaning beyond what's already in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the parameter documentation work.

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: 'Get balances of fungible tokens (ERC-20), NFTs (ERC-721 and ERC-1155) or multitokens (ERC-1155 only) for a specific wallet address on the following blockchains...' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('balances'), and scope (multiple blockchain networks and token types). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_wallet_balances_v4' or 'get_wallet_portfolio_v4' beyond mentioning the latter as a replacement.

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 explicit usage guidance: it states this endpoint is deprecated and recommends migrating to 'GET /v4/data/wallet/portfolio' as a faster, more reliable alternative. It specifies the deprecation timeline (End of Life on June 30, 2025) and includes a clear 'when-not-to-use' recommendation. The 'To get started' section also provides practical implementation guidance.

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