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 describes key behavioral traits: cost (50 credits per API call), supported token types and blockchains, pagination capability (implied through offset/pageSize), and metadata exclusion option. It doesn't mention rate limits, error handling, or authentication requirements, but covers most operational aspects well for a read-only tool.

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 information-dense but somewhat disorganized, mixing API endpoint details, credit cost, blockchain lists, usage instructions, and parameter notes in a single paragraph. While all content is relevant, better structuring (e.g., separating usage instructions from parameter details) would improve readability. It's not excessively verbose but could be more elegantly organized.

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 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides substantial context: it explains what the tool returns (portfolio balances with token information), lists supported blockchains, mentions pagination and metadata options, and specifies required parameters. The main gap is lack of output format details, but given the tool's complexity, the description covers most essential aspects well.

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 context about tokenTypes ('Supported values include [native], [fungible] and [nft,multitoken]') and mentions excludeMetadata's effect, but doesn't provide significant additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 portfolio balances of native, fungible tokens (ERC-20) or NFTs (ERC-721 and ERC-1155) for a specific wallet address' on listed blockchains. It specifies the exact resource (wallet portfolio), verb (get balances), and distinguishes from siblings like get_balances_v4 or get_nft_balances_v4 by covering multiple token types in one call.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'To get started: Provide a chain name and an address of that chain.' It mentions the API cost (50 credits per call) and lists supported blockchains. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use alternatives like get_balances_v4 or get_nft_balances_v4, which might be more specialized tools.

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