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 states the tool creates a transaction and issues a token, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions, network effects, transaction costs, or error handling. The vague phrase 'All the properties will be set to true' adds little value and doesn't clarify what properties or implications are involved.

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 brief but could be more front-loaded and efficient. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the second sentence ('Will issue the token with the specified arguments.') is redundant, and the third ('All the properties will be set to true.') is vague and adds minimal value. It's concise but not optimally structured.

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 issuing and sending tokens (a write operation with no annotations or output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on transaction behavior, success/failure responses, network requirements, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a tool with significant implications, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters (tokenName, tokenTicker, initialSupply, numDecimals) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, but doesn't contradict it either. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Create a transaction to issue a fungible token and send it.' It specifies the verb ('issue'), resource ('fungible token'), and action ('send it'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'issue-meta-esdt-collection' or 'send-fungible-tokens', which would require more specific context about when to use each.

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. It mentions issuing and sending a token but doesn't clarify scenarios like initial token creation vs. transfers, or how it differs from sibling tools such as 'send-fungible-tokens' or 'issue-meta-esdt-collection'. Without this, users might struggle to choose the right tool.

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