Deploy an ERC-20 token on AgentsCoin by passing a name and symbol, with optional supply and deployer key; returns the new token contract address.
Deploy a new token (ERC-20) on AgentsCoin. Returns the token address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | token name | |
| supply | No | total supply, default 1000000000 | |
| symbol | Yes | token symbol | |
| privateKey | No | deployer key; omit to use your saved wallet |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the return value (token address); it omits cost/gas implications, irreversibility of an on-chain deploy, and the auth role of the privateKey parameter.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the action is stated first and the return value second. Nothing is extraneous.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states the return value. But for a destructive on-chain deploy it omits cost/network requirements and irreversibility, leaving meaningful gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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% — all four parameters (name, symbol, supply, privateKey) are documented in the schema, including the supply default and the omit-privateKey fallback. The description adds no parameter meaning 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Deploy a new token (ERC-20)') with the chain context. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like agentscoin_add_liquidity or agentscoin_create_wallet beyond the implicit 'token' vs 'wallet/liquidity' subject.
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 guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent gets no cue about when deploying a token is appropriate versus sending, swapping, or adding liquidity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.