TON native + jetton balance for an address (defaults to USD₮). Send { address, jetton? }. [x402 paid tool — price $0.002; POST /api/ton/balance]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jetton | No | Jetton master (default USD₮) | |
| address | Yes | TON address |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description adds pricing and endpoint info but does not disclose rate limits, authentication, or side effects. It implies a read operation but does not confirm safety.
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?
One clear sentence with additional bracketed information. Efficient but the bracket info could be integrated more naturally.
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 simple tool with two params and no output schema, the description should explicitly state return value (balances). It only implies 'balance' but does not specify format or example.
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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds the default jetton value and the JSON structure, but these are also present in the schema. So minimal added value.
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 returns TON native and jetton balance for an address, defaults to USD₮. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ton_jetton (jetton info) and ton_account (account details).
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 tells the agent to send { address, jetton? } and notes it is a paid tool with price $0.002. It does not explicitly compare to alternatives like ton_account for when to use this tool vs. others, but the context is clear enough.
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.