OpenZeppelin Cairo Contracts

Cairo ERC1155

cairo-erc1155

Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard.

Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`info`	No	Metadata about the contract and author
`name`	Yes	The name of the contract
`access`	No
`macros`	No	The macros to use for the contract.
`supply`	No	Whether to keep track of total supply of tokens.
`baseUri`	Yes	The location of the metadata for the token. Clients will replace any instance of {id} in this string with the tokenId.
`burnable`	No	Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
`mintable`	No	Whether privileged accounts will be able to create more supply or emit more tokens
`pausable`	No	Whether privileged accounts will be able to pause specifically marked functionality. Useful for emergency response.
`uriStorage`	No	Allows updating token URIs for individual token IDs.
`royaltyInfo`	No	Provides information for how much royalty is owed and to whom, based on a sale price. Follows ERC-2981 standard.
`upgradeable`	No	Whether the smart contract is upgradeable.
`updatableUri`	No	Whether privileged accounts will be able to set a new URI for all token types.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that the tool returns generated source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which is key operational context for a code-generation tool. It does not explicitly mention whether it deploys or makes network calls, but 'returns the source code' reasonably implies no on-chain execution.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the return format and the important 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.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides essential operational context: generated source code returned as Markdown and no disk writes. It could mention the Cairo language explicitly or note that all the boolean flags configure generation, but the schema covers the flags and the title/name convey Cairo, so the core context is adequately covered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 92%, so the input schema already documents the parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard.' It also names the standard explicitly, which helps distinguish it from sibling generators like cairo-erc20 or cairo-erc721. However, ERC-1155 is a multi-token standard, so describing it only as a 'non-fungible token' is somewhat reductive and could blur the boundary with cairo-erc721.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of its siblings. The description does not mention ERC-1155's batch/multi-token use cases or contrast it with cairo-erc721 or cairo-erc20, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the standard name alone.

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

All OpenZeppelin Cairo Contracts tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool maps to a clearly named contract type—account, ERC standards, governance, multisig, vesting—so agents can generally tell them apart. However, cairo-custom is a generic 'make any custom smart contract' option that overlaps conceptually with all the specialized generators, creating minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the same cairo-<type> naming convention, using lowercase and hyphens consistently. This makes the tool family predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

Nine tools is a well-scoped set for a contract generation server. Each tool represents a common smart contract template, and there are enough options to cover standard use cases without overwhelming the tool surface.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the major OpenZeppelin Cairo contract categories: tokens, account abstraction, governance, multisig, vesting, and a custom fallback. A few common patterns like proxy or access control are not explicitly included, but the generic cairo-custom tool helps fill those gaps.

Resources

Need Help?