Deploy an ERC-721 NFT collection on Chiliz by providing name, symbol, max supply, and base token URI.
Deploy an ERC-721 NFT collection on Chiliz blockchain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Collection name (e.g., "Fan Moments") | |
| symbol | Yes | Collection symbol (e.g., "FMNT") | |
| maxSupply | Yes | Maximum number of NFTs that can be minted | |
| baseTokenURI | Yes | Base URI for token metadata (e.g., "ipfs://QmXxx/") |
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 behavioral burden. For a deployment operation it omits critical traits: that it is an irreversible write, that it costs gas, what wallet/auth is required, and what happens on success. Only the contract standard and chain are disclosed.
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 zero filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably undersized for a high-stakes deployment tool, keeping it just below a full mark.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it lacks prerequisites, gas/permission implications, irreversibility, and any note about the deployment result. The agent is left to infer the operational consequences.
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 each of the four required parameters is already documented with examples in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 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?
States a specific verb (Deploy), a precise resource (ERC-721 NFT collection), and the target chain (Chiliz). This cleanly separates it from siblings deploy_erc20_token and deploy_custom_contract without opening any schema.
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 offers no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and does not mention the obvious alternatives (deploy_erc20_token, deploy_custom_contract). Nothing tells the agent why to pick this deploy over another deploy sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.