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. It discloses key behavioral traits: cost ('50 credits per API call'), supported blockchains, and metadata return conditions for Solana/Algorand. However, it misses details like rate limits, error handling, pagination, or response format. The information is useful but incomplete for a tool with potential complexity.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently lists supported blockchains and metadata conditions in a structured manner. However, the credit cost mention could be integrated more smoothly, and some sentences are lengthy, slightly reducing 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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description provides moderate completeness. It covers purpose, cost, blockchains, and metadata nuances, but lacks details on response structure, error cases, or performance considerations. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output, this is adequate but leaves gaps for the agent.

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 both parameters (address and chain) adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format specifics or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 that a blockchain address holds' and specifies they are 'grouped by the smart contracts they were minted on.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_balances_v4 (general balances) and get_collections_v4 (collections data), but doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The verb 'get' and resource 'NFTs' are specific, though it could be more precise about the grouping aspect.

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 implied usage context by listing supported blockchains and noting metadata behavior differences for Solana and Algorand. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_metadata_v4 for metadata or get_owners_v4 for ownership checks. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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