TON account state: TON balance, status (active/frozen/uninit), is-wallet, name. Send { address }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.002; POST /api/ton/account]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | TON address (EQ../UQ../raw 0:..) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the tool is paid ($0.002) and returns specific data fields, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid addresses. Knowledge of payment is useful, but incomplete for a production 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 concise at 18 words (excluding metadata). It front-loads the core functionality and includes practical info (price, endpoint) without verbosity. Every sentence earns its place.
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 single-parameter tool with complete schema and no output schema, the description adequately states the returned fields (balance, status, etc.) and payment info. However, it lacks explanation of response structure or error cases, leaving some ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100% as the only parameter 'address' is described in schema with format examples. The description adds the redundant 'Send { address }' but no deeper semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate per rules.
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 it retrieves TON account state including balance, status, is-wallet, and name. It uses a specific verb ('state') and resource ('TON account'), and implies a broader view than sibling tools like ton_balance, effectively distinguishing its purpose.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies usage for querying account state but does not mention scenarios like needing full state vs. just balance, or prerequisites such as address format validation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.