OpenZeppelin Stellar Contracts

Stellar Stablecoin

stellar-stablecoin

Make a stablecoin that uses Fungible Token Standard, compatible with SEP-41.

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
`premint`	No	The number of tokens to premint for the deployer.
`burnable`	No	Whether token holders will be able to destroy their tokens
`decimals`	No	The number of decimals used to represent token amounts. Defaults to 7.
`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.
`limitations`	No	Whether to restrict certain users from transferring tokens, either via allowing or blocking them.
`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

A4/5.0

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 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.

Conciseness5/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

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 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

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?