TON Agentic-Wallet intelligence: read a Telegram AI agent's wallet funding, stablecoin balance, activity + a FUNDED/UNFUNDED/INACTIVE verdict before you transact with it. Send { address }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/ton/agent-wallet]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | The agent's TON wallet address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It adequately states this is a read operation and that it returns a verdict. It also notes the cost and endpoint. However, it does not disclose any potential side effects or restrictions (though none are expected).
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, then usage, then metadata. Very efficient with no wasted words. Could be slightly more structured but is already clear and concise.
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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (five items including a verdict). It is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's function and when to use it.
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 already provides a clear description for the single 'address' parameter. The description reinforces this by saying 'Send { address }', adding no significant new meaning. Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 reads a wallet's funding, stablecoin balance, activity, and provides a FUNDED/UNFUNDED/INACTIVE verdict. This distinct output differentiates it from sibling tools like ton_balance or ton_account that only return raw balances or account info.
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?
Explicitly advises using this tool 'before you transact with it' to check agent wallet status. Also mentions it is a paid tool (price $0.005). However, it does not specify when not to use it or explicitly name alternative tools for similar needs.
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.