OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts

Stellar Account

stellar-account

Make a smart account contract that authorizes operations through configurable signers and policies, for example a multisig with passkey, Ed25519 and delegated signers.

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
`policy`	No	How authorization is decided. False requires every configured signer to sign (n-of-n). Simple threshold requires any m of the n signers (a standard multisig). Weighted threshold gives each signer a weight and requires the authorized weights to reach a threshold. Both threshold policies need the address of a deployed policy contract at deployment.
`upgradeable`	No	Whether the account can be upgraded. The upgrade is authorized by the account itself through its context rules, not by an access control role.
`ed25519Signers`	No	Whether the account accepts raw Ed25519 public keys, verified by an Ed25519 verifier contract supplied at deployment.
`webauthnSigners`	No	Whether the account accepts WebAuthn (passkey) keys, verified by a WebAuthn verifier contract supplied at deployment.
`delegatedSigners`	No	Whether the account accepts delegated signers, meaning Stellar addresses whose signatures the host verifies. Enabled by default.
`executionEntryPoint`	No	Whether the account can call other contracts on its own behalf. Needed to manage contracts the account owns, such as its own policies, and enabled by default.

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. It explicitly states the output format ('Returns the source code of the generated contract, formatted in a Markdown code block') and a key side-effect ('Does not write to disk'), which is important behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention deployment dependencies or permissions, but for a code generator these are adequately covered.

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 with no redundancy. The first sentence states the purpose with a concrete example, and the second sentence covers output format and side-effect. All information is front-loaded and 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?

Given 8 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return format and side-effect behavior. While it doesn't elaborate on policy details or deployment prerequisites, those are documented in the schema, making the description sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core behavior and output.

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 adds some context by referencing signer types (passkey, Ed25519, delegated) that map to parameters, but it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions.

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 'Make a smart account contract that authorizes operations through configurable signers and policies' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying 'smart account contract' and providing concrete examples like multisig, passkey, and Ed25519, which are unique to this account type.

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 provides an example use case ('for example a multisig with passkey, Ed25519 and delegated signers') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like stellar-fungible or stellar-governor. The intended use is implied by the resource name and description, but no exclusions or explicit when-to-use guidance is given.

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

All OpenZeppelin Stellar 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool generates a distinct type of smart contract (fungible, non-fungible, governor, stablecoin, vault) with no overlap in purpose. The descriptions clearly differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent pattern: stellar-<type> using lowercase and hyphens. The naming is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

With 5 tools covering the most common Stellar contract types, the count is well-scoped for a code generator. Neither too sparse nor excessive.

Completeness4/5

The set covers major contract standards (fungible, non-fungible, governance, stablecoin, vault), but lacks some advanced types like access control or upgradeability, which are minor gaps.

Resources

Need Help?