MultiversX MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the creation action, file output format (PEM), security implications ('PEM file ARE NOT SECURE'), and idempotency behavior ('will abort operation' if wallet exists). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial operational context.

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 with just two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality and output format with a critical security warning, the second specifies important behavioral constraints. There's zero wasted text and it's front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 zero-parameter creation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description provides good completeness: it explains what the tool does, the output format, security implications, and idempotency behavior. The main gap is lack of information about what 'wallet' means in this context or what happens after creation, but given the simplicity of the tool, this is reasonably complete.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline would be 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since there are none, and instead focuses on the tool's operational semantics and output characteristics, which adds value beyond the empty schema.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('create a new wallet', 'save it as a PEM file') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on wallet creation rather than token operations or queries. It goes beyond restating the name by specifying the output format and security warning.

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 clear context about when to use this tool (to create a new wallet) and includes an important exclusion case ('If a wallet already exists, will abort operation'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it compared to sibling tools like get-wallet-address.

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