hedera_create_fungible_token

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses two key behaviors: the tool returns an unsigned transaction ('Build (unsigned)') and that the treasury defaults to the payer. However, with no annotations, it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or what happens with conflicting parameters. It's adequate but not comprehensive.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no fluff. The most critical information (what the tool does, the treasury default) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 (17 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal. It covers the essential purpose and a key default, but doesn't explain the lifecycle of the unsigned transaction (e.g., need for signing/submission) or the role of keys. Schema descriptions compensate somewhat, but overall completeness is just adequate.

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 coverage is high (88%), and the description adds value by specifying the default for treasuryAccountId ('defaults to payer'), which is not in the schema's parameter description. It avoids repeating schema information, thus providing a small but meaningful enhancement.

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 action (Build), the resource (new fungible token), and the context (HTS, unsigned). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hedera_create_nft_collection by specifying fungible token. The verb 'Build' and the qualifier '(unsigned)' are precise.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like hedera_mint_fungible for increasing supply or hedera_create_nft_collection for NFTs. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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