Stylus ERC20

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

With no annotations provided, the description effectively discloses key behaviors: returns source code, formats it as a Markdown code block, and does not write to disk. This clarifies side effects and output expectations, which is especially valuable for a code generation tool. It does not mention other potential side effects or prerequisites, but for this tool's simplicity, the disclosure 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.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured, with two short sentences that immediately state the purpose and then clarify the output format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary detail.

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?

The schema fully documents parameters, and the description covers output format and side effects. However, it lacks any context about the Stylus framework or guidance on when to choose this over other ERC-20 generators, which is a notable gap given the rich sibling list. Overall, it is sufficient for a straightforward generator but not complete in terms of usage context.

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 provides thorough descriptions for all 5 parameters, covering 100% of them. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics or usage tips, so it meets the baseline for complete schema coverage without exceeding it.

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 'Make a fungible token per the ERC-20 standard,' which identifies the specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that target other standards (e.g., ERC-721, ERC-1155), though it omits explicit mention of the Stylus/Rust framework, relying on the tool name.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like solidity-erc20 or cairo-erc20. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the name alone.

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