cardano_transaction_policyidCompute the policy ID from a minting policy script file. Provide the script path to get the hex-encoded policy ID for Cardano native assets.
Compute the policy ID from a minting policy script file.
Args:
script_file (string): Path to the minting policy script file
Returns: The policy ID as hex string.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script_file | Yes | Path to the minting policy script file |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the result is a hex string, which matters since there is no output schema, but says nothing about failure modes for a missing/malformed script file.
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 Args/Returns layout is front-loaded and the purpose sentence leads. It uses slightly more vertical space than necessary for one param, but no sentence is filler.
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 one-parameter, read-only computation with full annotation coverage, the description supplies both the input meaning and the return format (hex string), which is enough to call it correctly. Only error handling and script-format expectations are absent.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains script_file. The description merely restates the same phrase ('Path to the minting policy script file') without adding format, relative/absolute path, or file-type constraints.
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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Compute the policy ID from a minting policy script file') and the source input is named, which distinguishes it from the other ID-producing siblings (cardano_stake_pool_id, cardano_governance_drep_id, cardano_transaction_txid). It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls short of full differentiation.
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 states only what the tool does, with no indication of when to reach for it versus the other ID/txid tools, no prerequisites (e.g. file must exist or be a valid script), and no exclusions. An agent gets no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.