OpenZeppelin Cairo Contracts

Cairo ERC20

cairo-erc20

Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 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
`votes`	No	Whether to keep track of historical balances for voting in on-chain governance, with a way to delegate one's voting power to a trusted account.
`access`	No
`macros`	No	The macros to use for the contract.
`symbol`	Yes	The short symbol for the token
`appName`	No	Required when votes is enabled, for hashing and signing typed structured data. Name for domain separator implementing SNIP12Metadata trait. Prevents two applications from producing the same hash.
`premint`	No	The number of tokens to premint for the deployer.
`wrapper`	No	Whether to include ERC20Wrapper functionality for depositing and withdrawing an underlying token.
`burnable`	No	Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
`decimals`	No	The number of decimals to use for the contract. Defaults to 18.
`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.
`appVersion`	No	Required when votes is enabled, for hashing and signing typed structured data. Version for domain separator implementing SNIP12Metadata trait. Prevents two versions of the same application from producing the same hash.
`upgradeable`	No	Whether the smart contract is upgradeable.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

no annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure. It clearly says the return value is source code in a Markdown code block and that the tool does not write to disk, which directly addresses side effects and output format.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the output behavior. This structure makes the tool easy to scan and understand.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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

For a generator with 15 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is generated, in what format, and that nothing is written to disk. The schema supplies parameter details, defaults, and conditional constraints, so the definition is complete for correct invocation.

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 93%, so the input schema already documents the parameters in detail. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, which is appropriate given the high schema coverage; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Make'), a clear resource ('fungible token per the ERC-20 standard'), and differentiates from siblings like cairo-erc721 and cairo-erc1155. The return behavior is also specified, removing ambiguity about what the tool produces.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use for ERC-20 token generation but never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool. The sibling tool names suggest other standards, but no routing guidance is provided.

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?