OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts

Stellar Governor

stellar-governor

Make a governor contract for on-chain governance using token-based voting.

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
`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.
`quorum`	No	Minimum number of votes required for a proposal to pass, default is 500.
`version`	No	The semantic version label returned by the governor contract.
`timelock`	No	Whether to add a timelock mechanism that enforces a delay between proposal queuing and execution.
`upgradeable`	No	Whether the contract can be upgraded.
`votingDelay`	No	Number of ledgers between proposal creation and voting start (17,000 ledgers are approx. 1 day).
`votingPeriod`	No	Number of ledgers during which voting remains open (120,000 ledgers are approx. 1 week).
`proposalThreshold`	No	Minimum voting power required for creating a proposal, default is 100.
`explicitImplementations`	No	Whether the contract should use explicit trait implementations instead of using the default ones provided by the library.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

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?