OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts

Stellar Non-Fungible

stellar-non-fungible

Make a non-fungible token per the Non-Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-50, similar to ERC-721.

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 enable vote checkpoints and delegation for governance.
`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.
`symbol`	Yes	The short symbol for the token
`burnable`	No	Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
`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.
`tokenUri`	No	The metadata URI returned by the token contract for every NFT.
`enumerable`	No	Whether the NFTs are enumerable (can be iterated over).
`sequential`	No	Whether the IDs of the minted NFTs will be sequential.
`consecutive`	No	To batch mint NFTs instead of minting them individually (sequential minting is mandatory).
`upgradeable`	No	Whether the contract can be upgraded.
`explicitImplementations`	No	Whether the contract should use explicit trait implementations instead of using the default ones provided by the library.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

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 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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.

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?