Deploy a custom ERC-20 token on Chiliz by specifying its name, symbol, and initial supply to launch fan or utility tokens.
Deploy a custom ERC-20 token on Chiliz blockchain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Token name (e.g., "Fan Token") | |
| symbol | Yes | Token symbol (e.g., "FAN") | |
| initialSupply | Yes | Initial supply (in tokens, not wei) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure for a write/on-chain operation. It says the tool deploys a token but does not state that this is a state-changing, irreversible, gas-consuming transaction, nor mention authorization or confirmation requirements.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though terse enough that it leaves important behavioral context unstated.
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 deployment tool with three required params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits what happens after deployment (address returned, where the token lives, whether deployment is permanent) and any authorization or cost context an agent needs.
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 three parameters, including the important 'not wei' unit clarification for initialSupply. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb (Deploy) and resource (custom ERC-20 token) plus the target chain (Chiliz), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like deploy_nft_collection and deploy_custom_contract. It is not a tautology and gives an agent enough to know what the tool produces.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., wallet connection, gas funds, confirmation requirements). In a sibling set containing deploy_nft_collection and deploy_custom_contract, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.