OpenZeppelin Solidity Contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which is useful behavioral information. However, it does not mention any other nuances such as error handling or parameter-driven behavior changes, resulting in a moderate level of transparency.

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 three short, focused sentences. It is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the return format and a key side effect, 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?

For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but covers the essential aspects: what it creates, the format of the result, and that it does not write to disk. Given the rich schema descriptions, the tool is adequately contextualized for correct invocation.

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% and every property has a detailed description (e.g., signer enum options, upgradeable types, ERC-721/1155 holders). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema compensates fully, 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.

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

The description begins with 'Make an account contract that follows the ERC-4337 standard,' which clearly states the action and resource. It also specifies the output format (Markdown code block) and the side effect (does not write to disk), distinguishing it from sibling contract generators by scope and behavior.

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 clearly frames the tool as for generating an ERC-4337 compliant account contract, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it falls short of an explicit when/when-not guide.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which is key behavioral information for a code-generation tool.

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 short sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately adding return format and side-effect information. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

The description provides the essential context: purpose, output format, and no disk writes. Given the detailed input schema, this is mostly complete, though it could be slightly richer about how parameters shape the generated contract.

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 covers all parameters (100%) with detailed descriptions for name, info, access, pausable, and upgradeable. The description itself adds no parameter-specific detail, 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.

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.' It also specifies the output (source code in a Markdown code block), and the word 'custom' distinguishes it from sibling tools like solidity-erc20 or solidity-erc721.

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 when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided. The word 'custom' implies it is for bespoke contracts rather than standard templates, but there are no clear conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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 carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Returns the source code... formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk,' which are key behavioral traits for a code generator. It does not mention compilation or deployment, but those may not be expected for a code generation tool. Overall, this is a solid disclosure.

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 only two sentences but packs essential information: the tool's purpose, the output format, and the fact that it does not write to disk. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the primary action. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool has 12 parameters and nested objects, but the schema provides detailed descriptions, so the description does not need to repeat them. The description covers the return value (source code) and side-effect behavior (no disk write). It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and output, though it could possibly mention the generated language (Solidity) is implicit from the name.

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% coverage, meaning every parameter has a descriptive explanation. The description itself does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and no extra value is added by the description.

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 the tool 'Make a non-fungible token per the ERC-1155 standard,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the ERC-1155 standard. It also specifies the output type (source code in a Markdown code block), adding further clarity.

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: this is for creating ERC-1155 tokens. It does not explicitly exclude other standards or mention alternatives like ERC-721, but the standard is named and the sibling tools are evident. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it when ERC-1155 is requested.

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 carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block. Does not write to disk.' This discloses the output format and the key behavioral trait that it has no filesystem side effects. It does not mention other potential behaviors like network calls, but for a code generator this is the most relevant information.

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 and front-loaded with the action ('Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 standard'). The second sentence adds essential output and side-effect info. No filler or redundancy; every word 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?

Despite having 18 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently orients the user by stating the tool generates ERC-20 token source code and returns it as a Markdown code block. The schema handles detailed parameter context. It could mention that many features are configurable, but it is not necessary given the rich schema descriptions. It is nearly complete.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all 18 parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting; the description does not hinder understanding.

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 fungible token per the ERC-20 standard.' This specific verb+resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like solidity-erc721 and solidity-erc1155, which generate different token standards. It also mentions the output format (Markdown code block) and that it does not write to disk, further clarifying its purpose.

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 usage for generating ERC-20 tokens but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., solidity-custom, solidity-erc721). The context is clear from the standard name but lacks direct guidance.

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?

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the tool 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk.' This is valuable transparency about output format and side effects, though it does not speculate on parameter combinations or potential failures.

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 only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the secondary behavior clarification following. Every word earns its place, and there is zero waste 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 (16 parameters, nested objects) but fully descriptive schema, the description appropriately focuses on the output and side-effect behavior. It answers what the tool returns and whether it persists files. Without an output schema, this coverage is adequate 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?

The input schema covers 100% of the 16 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add further parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already provides thorough details such as default values, constraints, and dependencies (e.g., the crossChainLinkAllowOverride conditional).

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 non-fungible token per the ERC-721 standard.' It also specifies the output is source code in a Markdown code block and that it does not write to disk. This distinguishes it from siblings like solidity-erc20 and solidity-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 implies usage for generating ERC-721 NFTs but does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like ERC-1155 for semi-fungible tokens or ERC-20 for fungible tokens. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, making it only implicitly clear based on the standard name.

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 carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, which are critical side-effect and output behaviors. This gives the agent a clear understanding of the tool's non-mutating, generation-only nature, although it doesn't detail potential errors or dependencies.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: the first establishes purpose, the second specifies the return format, and the third clarifies a key side-effect (does not write to disk). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no filler or irrelevant 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?

Despite the tool's complexity (17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, output format, and side-effect behavior. The schema handles parameter details, so the description need not repeat them. It could have added more about the generated contract's structure or usage examples, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter details, but the input schema already provides comprehensive descriptions for all 17 parameters. The description does not need to compensate, and no value is added beyond the schema.

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 contract to implement governance, such as for a DAO.' It identifies the specific resource (governance contract) and the action (generate). The phrase 'such as for a DAO' and the return format ('Returns the source code...') distinguish it from sibling contract generators like solidity-erc20 or solidity-account.

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: use this tool when you need to generate a governance/DAO contract. It implies the use case without explicitly naming alternatives, but the purpose is specific enough that an agent can infer when to choose it over sibling contract generators. No exclusions are given, but the context is unambiguous.

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It clearly states that the tool does not write to disk and returns formatted source code in a Markdown code block. It also warns that features are experimental, unaudited, and subject to change, which is important risk-related context. It does not mention authentication, rate limits, or side effects beyond no-write, but for a code-generation tool this is reasonable coverage.

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 primary purpose, followed by the experimental warning and side-effect disclosure. Every sentence earns its place; there is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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 high complexity (19 parameters, nested objects, no annotations, no output schema), the description does a solid job covering the key contextual points: what it generates, the experimental nature, and the output format/side-effect. It doesn't explain the full feature set, but the schema descriptions already cover those details. The description is complete enough for an agent to select this tool over siblings and understand its immediate behavior.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add any information about parameters beyond what the schema already provides. It doesn't need to compensate since the schema is thorough, but it also doesn't elevate the parameter understanding.

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 what the tool does: 'Make a real-world asset token that uses the ERC-20 standard.' It specifies the resource (RWA token) and the standard (ERC-20), and the sibling tools include solidity-erc20, so the 'real-world asset' phrasing differentiates it from a generic ERC-20 generator. It also clarifies the output ('Returns the source code...') which adds to purpose clarity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like solidity-erc20 or solidity-custom. The 'real-world asset' phrasing implies a use case, but no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternatives is provided. The experimental warning is a caution, not a usage guideline.

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 reveals the tool is experimental with unaudited features, returns source code as a Markdown code block, and explicitly states it does not write to disk – crucial side-effect and safety information.

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 and front-loaded, with the primary purpose in the first sentence, followed by a caveat and output behavior. Every sentence earns its place 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 complexity (19 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description provides key context about return format and side effects, but could be slightly richer about the nature of the generated contract (e.g., its completeness or deployment readiness). Still, the schema handles parameter-level detail effectively.

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 schema has 100% coverage for all 19 parameters with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, though it does frame the overall standard (ERC-20).

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 'Make a stablecoin token that uses the ERC-20 standard', which is a specific verb and resource. This differentiates it from sibling tools like solidity-erc20 by focusing on stablecoin tokens, making the intent 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 description implies usage context (when a stablecoin token is needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like solidity-erc20 or mention when not to use it. The context is clear, but exclusions and alternative guidance are absent.

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