cairo-erc20

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns source code in a Markdown code block and does not write to disk, making side effects clear. However, it could add more (e.g., idempotency, no state modification) but is already fairly transparent for a code generation tool.

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 with two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and key behavior (output format, no disk write). Every word adds value, with no wasted space.

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 14 complex parameters and no output schema, the description lacks detail about how parameters affect output or constraints. It explains the output format but omits examples or usage context, making it adequate but not fully 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 covers 14 parameters with 93% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description adds no extra parameter information, meeting 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 clearly states the verb 'Make' and resource 'fungible token per ERC-20 standard', specifying it generates a Cairo contract. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target other standards (ERC-721, ERC-1155) or languages (Solidity, Stylus) by mentioning Cairo and ERC-20 explicitly.

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 use for generating an ERC-20 token contract but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling tools provide context for different standards or languages.

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