OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: 'Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block' and 'Does not write to disk.' This explains the output format and side-effect absence, which is critical for a generator. However, it does not mention validation, error handling, or whether parameters have constraints beyond the schema, so some transparency is still missing.

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 extremely concise, two sentences long, with the purpose front-loaded. Every sentence serves a distinct function: the first states what the tool creates, and the second explains the output format and side-effect. There is no wasted wording or repetition of schema details.

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 (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: it generates a contract, returns source code, and does not write to disk. It does not explain the meaning of specific parameter combinations or error conditions, but the rich schema descriptions compensate. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and primary 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 coverage is 100%, with every parameter having a description in the input schema. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it only mentions the fungible token standard, which is already implied. The description neither clarifies ambiguous parameters nor provides usage examples, so it adds marginal value over 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 it 'Make a fungible token per the Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming the token standard and noting it is 'similar to ERC-20'. The addition that it returns source code and does not write to disk further clarifies its role as a code generator.

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 through its focus on fungible tokens and SEP-41 compatibility, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like stellar-non-fungible or stellar-stablecoin. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided. The context is clear but guidance is only implied, not stated.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool returns source code in a Markdown block and does not write to disk, which are key safety and behavior clarifications. However, it does not mention other potential side effects, required permissions, or failure modes, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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 clear sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and ending with essential output/behavior info. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 covers the tool's primary function and output format. Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return format. It does not discuss parameter interactions or edge cases, but the schema provides parameter-level detail. Given the complexity (11 params, nested objects), slightly more context about the generated contract could be beneficial, but the description is still largely 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?

The input schema provides complete descriptions (100% coverage) for all 11 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, but given the strong schema, this is acceptable.

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 identifies the action ('Make'), the resource ('governor contract'), and the specific domain ('on-chain governance using token-based voting'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate other contract types (fungible, non-fungible, stablecoin, vault).

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be chosen when creating a governance contract, nor does it exclude other scenarios. Sibling names imply different contract types, but the description itself lacks explicit usage direction.

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 the output format ('source code... in a Markdown code block') and the action of not writing to disk, which informs the agent that this is a non-persistent generation operation. This goes beyond mere purpose and adds safety-relevant context.

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, with the first stating the purpose and the second covering return format and side-effect. Every sentence is informative with no 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 absence of an output schema, the description usefully specifies that the return is a Markdown code block containing source code. It also orients the user with the 'similar to ERC-721' analogy, which helps set expectations for the contract structure. However, it doesn't address error conditions or prerequisites beyond schema requirements.

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% description coverage for all 14 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 with a specific verb ('Make') and resource ('non-fungible token'), further defined by the Non-Fungible Token Standard and SEP-50 compatibility. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like stellar-fungible, satisfying the specificity requirement.

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 its use case by specifying 'non-fungible token' and the standard, but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tool names provide context, but the description itself offers no comparative guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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 of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool returns source code as a Markdown block and does not write to disk, which sets expectations about side effects. However, it does not disclose any other behaviors such as network calls or permissions, but for a code generator this is sufficient.

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 exceptionally concise: three short sentences that lead with the purpose and then detail the output format and side-effect behavior. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant 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?

The description covers the key contextual aspects: what the tool does, what it returns, and that it is non-persistent. While the tool has 13 parameters, the schema provides full descriptions, so the description does not need to elaborate on each. It adequately equips an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool within the given context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each of the 13 parameters. It neither compensates for gaps nor adds special context, but it does not need to.

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 purpose: to create a stablecoin using the Fungible Token Standard and SEP-41. The verb 'Make' combined with the specific resource 'stablecoin' leaves no ambiguity. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'stablecoin' rather than generic fungible tokens, non-fungible, or governor tokens.

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 the tool is for generating stablecoin contracts but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like stellar-fungible or stellar-governor. There is no mention of exclusions or recommended scenarios, so the usage guidance is only implicit.

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 transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool returns source code and does not write to disk, which is essential behavioral context. It does not mention any other side effects or limitations, but for a code generator this disclosure is substantial.

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: the first states the core purpose, the second specifies the output format and side-effect. It is concise, front-loaded, and every sentence 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?

For a complex generator with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool creates, its output format, and that it does not persist files. It leaves parameter details to the schema, which is fully described. Minor gap: no guidance on how parameter choices affect the generated contract, but this is not critical given schema coverage.

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 fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics, which aligns with the baseline of 3 for high coverage.

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 uses a specific verb 'Make' and a specific resource 'tokenized vault' that issues Fungible Token shares, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like stellar-fungible or stellar-governor. It also clarifies the output (source code in Markdown) and side-effect-free nature, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 by comparing to ERC-4626, implying it is for vault-style tokenized assets rather than simple tokens. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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