The mistake here is neither morphological nor neologistic; it is lexical.
Morphology denotes the changes of form of which a word is grammar required to undergo in order to make it agree with a specific context. Me for I when the word is used as indirect object is a morphological change; if the translator had written Hand I the pincers the error would be morphological.
Neologism is, literally, the process of building or inventing new words, but it is more often used to designate a word so invented. Sometimes the term is used in a neutral sense to describe the historic origin of a word: “Oxygen is a neologism created in 1777 by the French chemist Lavoisier from Greek oxys and French gène, itself derived from a Greek word." More often the term is used in a deprecating sense: “This term [electrocution], descriptive of the method of Inflicting the death penalty on convicted criminals in some of the states, is a vulgar neologism of hybrid origin, which should be discountenanced.” The translator has not invented a new word — both pincers and pliers have been around for a long time.
What the translator has done, you tell us, is simply chosen the wrong word from the English vocabulary or lexicon.