OpenZeppelin Solidity Contracts

Solidity ERC20

solidity-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. Voting durations can be expressed as block numbers or timestamps.
`access`	No	The type of access control to provision. Ownable is a simple mechanism with a single account authorized for all privileged actions. Roles is a flexible mechanism with a separate role for each privileged action. A role can have many authorized accounts. Managed enables a central contract to define a policy that allows certain callers to access certain functions.
`permit`	No	Whether without paying gas, token holders will be able to allow third parties to transfer from their account.
`symbol`	Yes	The short symbol for the token
`premint`	No	The number of tokens to premint for the deployer.
`burnable`	No	Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
`callback`	No	Whether to include support for code execution after transfers and approvals on recipient contracts in a single transaction.
`decimals`	No	The number of decimals used to represent token amounts. 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.
`flashmint`	No	Whether to include built-in flash loans to allow lending tokens without requiring collateral as long as they're returned in the same transaction.
`upgradeable`	No	Whether the smart contract is upgradeable. Transparent uses more complex proxy with higher overhead, requires less changes in your contract. Can also be used with beacons. UUPS uses simpler proxy with less overhead, requires including extra code in your contract. Allows flexibility for authorizing upgrades.
`premintChainId`	No	The chain ID of the network on which to premint tokens.
`namespacePrefix`	No	The prefix for ERC-7201 namespace identifiers. It should be derived from the project name or a unique naming convention specific to the project. Used only if the contract includes storage variables and upgradeability is enabled. Default is "myProject".
`crossChainBridging`	No	Whether to allow authorized bridge contracts to mint and burn tokens for crosschain transfers. Options are to use custom bridges on any chain, to embed an ERC-7786 based bridge directly in the token contract, or to use the SuperchainERC20 standard with the predeployed SuperchainTokenBridge. The SuperchainERC20 feature is only available on chains in the Superchain, and requires deploying your contract to the same address on every chain in the Superchain.
`crossChainLinkAllowOverride`	No	Whether to allow replacing a crosschain link that has already been registered. Only used if crossChainBridging is set to "erc7786native".

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

All OpenZeppelin Solidity 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

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct contract type (account, custom, ERC1155, ERC20, ERC721, governor, RWA, stablecoin), and descriptions clearly differentiate between them, even for the ERC20-based variants.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the identical 'solidity-<type>' pattern, providing a predictable and consistent naming scheme across the entire server.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools covering the main Solidity contract categories plus a custom option, the count is well-scoped for a contract generator and avoids unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers major contract types, but it lacks support for upgradeable contracts (proxies) and some common OpenZeppelin features like ERC4626 vaults. The 'solidity-custom' tool can partially compensate for these gaps.

Resources

Need Help?