Create an associated token account for SPL tokens on the Solana blockchain to enable token storage and transfers.
Create associated token account for SPL tokens
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokenMint | Yes | Token mint address | |
| walletName | Yes | Name of the wallet |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does 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. It states 'Create' which implies a write operation, but does not mention permissions, costs, side effects (e.g., network fees), or what happens on failure. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely involves blockchain transactions.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 of blockchain operations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not cover behavioral aspects like transaction confirmation, error handling, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively in context.
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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('walletName' and 'tokenMint'). The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between wallet and token mint or format requirements. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('associated token account for SPL tokens'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_spl_token' or 'create_wallet', which also involve creation operations in the same domain, leaving some ambiguity about its specific role.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain if this is for initial setup, how it relates to 'create_spl_token' or 'get_token_accounts', or any prerequisites like needing an existing wallet or token mint. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.