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 the API cost ('50 credits per API call'), which is useful context not in the schema. However, it doesn't describe other important behaviors like pagination mechanics (implied by offset/pageSize but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (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 overly verbose and poorly structured. It includes irrelevant information for an AI agent (API version migration note for v3 users, blockchain list formatting issues). The core purpose is buried after this noise. Sentences like 'Our API lets you search for all token owners on:' followed by a messy list reduce clarity. It could be significantly condensed and front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, supported blockchains, and parameter hints, but lacks critical details: no explanation of pagination behavior (offset/pageSize usage), no response format description, and no error handling or rate limit info. The API cost mention is helpful, but overall it leaves gaps for a tool with multiple parameters and no structured output documentation.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'chain name and address' and 'tokenId' for specific NFTs, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what's in the schema descriptions. 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 addresses that own your favorite token (ERC-20, ERC-721 or ERC-1155)!' It specifies the verb ('get'), resource ('addresses that own your favorite token'), and token types. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_owner_v4' or 'get_nft_balances_v4', which likely have related but distinct purposes.

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 address of any fungible token, NFT or multitoken collection.' It implies when to use this tool (to find token owners) but doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like 'check_owner_v4' or specify when not to use it (e.g., for checking single ownership vs. listing all owners).

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