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 mentions cost ('20 credits per API call'), supported blockchains, and some behavioral details like pagination (implied through offset/pageSize parameters) and metadata exclusion options. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like rate limits, error handling, authentication requirements, or what the response structure looks like (no output schema exists).

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 poorly structured with multiple topics mixed together: API version notes, credit costs, supported blockchains, usage instructions, and parameter details. It begins with administrative information rather than the core purpose. The note about v3 API users is unnecessary for tool selection. Sentences like 'Our API lets you search for all tokens on:' followed by a blockchain list could be more 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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides moderate coverage. It explains the core functionality, lists supported blockchains, and mentions some parameter behaviors. However, for a tool with pagination, filtering options, and no output schema, it should better explain response structure, error conditions, and practical usage patterns. The completeness is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds some context about 'excludeMetadata' and 'tokenType' parameters, and mentions Tezos-specific behavior, but doesn't provide significant additional semantic value beyond what's in the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'Get all NFTs (ERC-721 and ERC-1155) and multitokens (ERC-1155 only) of your favorite collections!' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('NFTs and multitokens'), and scope ('collections'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_nft_balances_v4' or 'get_multi_token_balance_v4', but the focus on collections rather than wallets provides some implicit distinction.

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 some usage context by listing supported blockchains and stating 'To get started: Provide a chain name and comma-separated list of collection addresses.' However, it doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_nft_balances_v4' (which appears to be wallet-focused) or 'get_owners_v4'. The guidance is implied rather than explicit about tool selection.

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