OpenZeppelin Cairo Contracts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns source code formatted as a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. It also mentions deployability and extensibility. This goes beyond basic 'generate contract' and provides useful operational details, though it does not cover potential errors or prerequisites.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second paragraph clarifies the return format and side effects. There is minor redundancy (e.g., 'custom smart contract' and 'account' explanation), but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded without excessive wordiness.

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 tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential missing pieces: it states the return format (Markdown code block) and non-disk-write behavior. The schema covers parameter meanings. However, it does not address edge cases or limitations, and it lacks explicit differentiation from sibling code generators, leaving some contextual ambiguity. Still, it is reasonably complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 9 parameters, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description itself adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. The baseline is 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not need to compensate.

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 verb 'Make' and the resource 'a custom smart contract that represents an account'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing specifically on account contracts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives like cairo-custom or cairo-multisig. The purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand this generates account contract source code.

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 context by explaining that an account is a special type of contract for validating and executing transactions, which implies when this tool is relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools such as cairo-multisig or cairo-governor, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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

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

Even though annotations are absent, the description discloses critical behaviors: it returns source code, formats it as Markdown, and does not write to disk. This transparently signals a side-effect-free generation process. It stops short of mentioning more subtle behaviors (e.g., output length or dependency on network), but is strong for a code generator.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences convey purpose, return format, and side-effect involvement. Every phrase adds value, with the key information front-loaded.

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 code-generation tool, the description covers the essential behaviors: what it does, what it returns, and what it doesn't do (write to disk). The input schema fully documents parameters, and no output schema is present, so the text appropriately focuses on the generation outcome. It could mention deployment explicitly, but that is reasonably implied by 'returns source code.'

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 high (83%) and includes detailed explanations for nested objects like 'access' and 'macros'. The description adds no parameter-specific context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function ('Make a custom smart contract') and explicitly notes the output (source code in a Markdown code block). The term 'custom' distinguishes it from the sibling template-based tools, making its unique role clear.

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 explicit guidance is given on when to choose this tool over siblings like cairo-erc20 or cairo-governor. The word 'custom' implies a fallback for non-standard contracts, but the description never states criteria, exclusions, or alternatives.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which are key side-effect and output traits. However, it does not mention potential error conditions, input validation behavior, or what happens if required parameters are missing, so it is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by crucial output/side-effect details. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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 tool's complexity (11 params, nested objects) and absence of an output schema, the description covers the return value and side-effect behavior succinctly. The rich schema covers parameter details, so the description doesn't need to enumerate features. A slight deduction for not providing a brief overview of the contract generation flow, but it is sufficient for a code generator.

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 coverage is high (91%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter detail beyond what the schema already provides; it does not explain any parameters or tie them to the generation behavior. The schema descriptions are already comprehensive, so no deduction is needed.

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 uses a specific verb 'Make' with a clear resource ('a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cairo-erc20 and cairo-erc721 by specifying the standard. It also clarifies the output format and side effects, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage context is implied by the tool name and mention of the ERC-1155 standard, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like cairo-erc721 or cairo-erc20. No exclusions or alternative-tool references are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which is key behavioral information. It could add more about side effects or permissions, but for a code generator this covers the essential behavior.

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 two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the primary purpose and then immediately adds the key return behavior and side-effect disclosure. Every sentence earns its place.

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 14 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is complete enough: it specifies the return format and the fact that it does not write to disk. The high schema coverage handles parameter details. No critical missing context for a code generation tool.

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 93%, so the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description adds no new parameter-specific semantics, but the high schema coverage means the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 standard.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cairo-erc721 and cairo-erc1155, which are for non-fungible tokens, and cairo-account/vesting.

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 makes it clear this tool is for generating an ERC-20 token, which implies the use case. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it, but the purpose statement is sufficient contextual guidance for an agent.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns the source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which are important behavioral traits for a code generator. This goes beyond a simple statement of purpose and clarifies side effects.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes essential return-format and side-effect information. Every word adds value; there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple code generator with a rich parameter schema and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's behavior and return format. It could mention more about the generated contract's content, but the schema covers parameter details, and the core behavior is well-defined.

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 high (93%), so the parameters are already well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what is already present, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: to make a non-fungible token per the ERC-721 standard, which is a specific verb and resource. It returns source code of the generated contract, distinguishing it from sibling tools like cairo-erc20 or cairo-erc1155.

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 for when to use the tool (when an ERC-721 token is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. The context is sufficient given the tool's name and the standard reference, but no explicit when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

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 transparently states that the tool returns source code formatted as a Markdown code block and explicitly says it does not write to disk. This is valuable context about side effects and output format, though it does not cover every possible behavioral nuance.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and immediately follows with the key output behavior. Every sentence provides necessary information with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's complexity (17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential contextual points: what it generates, the output format, and its non-destructive behavior. The absence of details about parameter interactions is mitigated by the rich schema descriptions. It is slightly lean for such a complex tool but still adequate.

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 fully documents all 17 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action: 'Make a contract to implement governance, such as for a DAO.' It also clarifies the output by noting it returns source code in a Markdown code block. This distinguishes the tool from sibling contract generators like cairo-erc20 or cairo-account by its governance focus.

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 phrase 'such as for a DAO' implies a governance use case, but no explicit comparison with alternatives or exclusions is provided. While the sibling tool names suggest other contract types, the description itself does not state when to prefer this tool over them.

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

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

With no annotations, the description provides crucial behavioral context: it returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk. This explicitly states the tool's side-effect-free nature, which is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke it. It doesn't mention input validation or edge cases, but for a code generator this is sufficient.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first states what the tool does, and the second clarifies the output format and side effects. Excellent conciseness.

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 code generation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it does, the output format, and that it doesn't write to disk. The schema covers parameter details, so the description is complete enough without explaining every field.

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?

All 5 parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The mention of quorum and signers provides some additional context, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('multi-signature smart contract'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling contract generators. It also adds key details like quorum and signers, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 context is clear (generating a multisig contract), but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like cairo-governor or cairo-custom. It implies usage but lacks when-not or alternative recommendations.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: the output is rendered as a Markdown code block and it does not write to disk. This goes beyond the basic purpose and gives the agent a clear picture of side-effects and return format, though it does not cover error cases or permission requirements.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose, the second states the output and side-effect. It is front-loaded, concise, and every sentence earns its place with no redundant information.

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?

The combination of the description and a very detailed input schema provides a solid understanding of the tool. The output format and non-persistence behavior are clearly specified. However, the description mentions a 'designated beneficiary' which is not represented as a parameter in the schema, creating a minor gap about how the beneficiary is configured. Otherwise, it is complete for a code generation tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all parameters are already described in detail (formats, enums, defaults). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, only referencing a 'predefined vesting schedule' without elaborating on the schedule option. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Purpose is highly specific: 'Make a vesting smart contract that manages the gradual release of ERC-20 tokens to a designated beneficiary based on a predefined vesting schedule.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling contract generators (e.g., erc20, erc721) and includes the output format (Markdown source code) and side-effect (no disk write).

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 implies when to use the tool (when a vesting contract is needed), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Since sibling tools are all different contract types, the usage is clear by context but not explicitly stated, resulting in an implied rather than explicit guideline.

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