Cairo ERC6909

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 specifies that the tool returns source code in a Markdown block and does not write to disk, which are essential behaviors. However, it does not mention any potential side effects beyond that, but for a code generator these two are the most critical.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about output and disk usage adds value without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and nested objects, the description covers the core purpose, output format, and side-effect avoidance. It does not clarify the interaction between 'minimal' and the optional features, but the schema descriptions cover each parameter adequately. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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 schema description coverage is 91%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters, only the general notion of 'minimal' which might be ambiguous. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the 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 action ('Make a minimal multi-token') and the specific standard (ERC-6909), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like cairo-erc20 and cairo-erc721. It also clarifies that it returns source code, removing any ambiguity about being a generator.

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 usage for ERC-6909 tokens via the standard name, but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. Since siblings cover other standards, the 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.