OpenZeppelin Cairo Contracts

Cairo ERC6909

cairo-erc6909

Make a minimal multi-token per the ERC-6909 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.
`burnable`	No	Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
`metadata`	No	Whether to include per-token metadata extension providing name, symbol, and decimals per token ID.
`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.
`contentUri`	No	Whether to include Content URI extension for contract-level and per-token URI metadata.
`tokenSupply`	No	Whether to keep track of total supply per token ID.
`upgradeable`	No	Whether the smart contract is upgradeable.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses key behaviors: returns source code, formats it in a Markdown code block, and does not write to disk. It does not cover every failure mode or validation detail, but the most important side-effect behavior is addressed.

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 filler: the first states purpose, the second states output format and side-effect behavior. Every sentence earns its place and the essential information is front-loaded.

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?

Given a complex 11-param schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the essential output format and the no-disk side effect. It does not elaborate on how options map to generated code, but high schema coverage compensates. Sibling differentiation is the main contextual gap.

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 91%, so the schema already documents nearly all 11 properties. The description adds 'minimal' as a generation style but not parameter-level semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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?

States a clear action: 'Make a minimal multi-token per the ERC-6909 standard.' The standard name differentiates it from sibling generators like cairo-erc721 or cairo-erc1155, though it doesn't spell out that differentiation. An agent can tell what artifact is produced.

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 its use case by naming ERC-6909 and 'minimal multi-token', but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over cairo-erc1155 or cairo-erc20. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided. This is implied guidance, not explicit guidance.

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?