Tatum MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions '50 credits per API call' (cost information) and lists supported blockchains, but doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (especially since there's no output schema).

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 reasonably concise but poorly structured. It front-loads the API endpoint and cost information before the actual purpose. The blockchain list takes up excessive space and could be summarized. The single run-on sentence could be broken into clearer components for better readability.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'Multi Token' means specifically, how results are structured (grouped by smart contracts), what data is returned, or provide any examples. The cost information is useful but doesn't compensate for missing behavioral and output context.

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 fully documents both parameters. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the address parameter indirectly but provides no additional context about format requirements or chain selection guidance.

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 Multi Token balances of a wallet address' with the specific action 'Get' and resource 'Multi Token balances'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_balances_v4 by specifying 'Multi Token' grouping by smart contracts, though it could be more explicit about the difference.

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 like get_balances_v4 or get_nft_balances_v4. It lists supported blockchains but doesn't explain why you'd choose this tool over other balance-checking tools in the sibling list.

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