Cairo ERC20

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool 'Does not write to disk' and that it 'Returns the source code... formatted in a Markdown code block,' which are important non-obvious behaviors. This adds meaningful transparency beyond the schema.

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 only two sentences, with the first stating the core purpose and the second covering the output format and side-effect (no disk write). Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant information or filler.

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?

Despite having 14 parameters and no output schema, the description gives the essential context: it generates a contract, returns source code, and does not persist anything. The schema covers the parameters, and the return format is described. It could benefit from mentioning prerequisites or when to choose Cairo over Solidity, but it is sufficient for a code generator.

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?

Schema description coverage is high (93%), so the input schema already documents most parameters effectively. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning or examples. Per the calibration baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate when the schema handles the parameter semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 standard.' It identifies the specific resource (a Cairo ERC-20 contract) and the output (source code), which distinguishes it from sibling ERC-721 or Solidity tools. However, it doesn't explicitly mention Cairo or contrast with alternatives, relying on the tool name for language context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solidity-erc20 or cairo-erc721. It doesn't state any prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios. The context signals show many sibling tools, but the description never explains how to choose among them.

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