OpenZeppelin Solidity Contracts

Solidity RWA

solidity-rwa

Make a real-world asset token that uses the ERC-20 standard. Experimental, some features are not audited and are subject to change.

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.
`freezable`	No	Whether authorized accounts can freeze and unfreeze accounts for regulatory or security purposes. This feature is experimental, not audited and is subject to change.
`restrictions`	No	Whether to restrict certain users from transferring tokens, either via allowing or blocking them. This feature is experimental, not audited and is subject to change.
`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 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

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?