GRAM/TON network snapshot: GRAM price + USD₮-on-TON stablecoin footprint (holders, supply) — the size of the 1B-user Telegram economy. Send {}. [x402 paid tool — price $0.002; POST /api/ton/gram]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the tool is paid ($0.002, POST) but does not state whether it is read-only or describe any side effects. 'Send {}' is ambiguous and does not clarify 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?
The description mixes core purpose with marketing fluff ('size of the 1B-user Telegram economy') and technical metadata (price, endpoint). It is somewhat verbose for a zero-parameter tool but still front-loaded with the main action.
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 snapshot tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what data is returned (price, holders, supply). However, it lacks details on data format, units, or whether it's a single value or time series, leaving room for agent confusion.
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?
Since there are no parameters, the schema coverage is trivially 100%. The description does not need to add parameter meaning; baseline 4 applies as per scoring 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 the tool provides a snapshot of GRAM price and USD₮ stablecoin footprint (holders, supply), distinguishing it from simpler siblings like ton_price or ton_jetton_holders. However, the inclusion of 'Send {}' is confusing and the exact output format is vague.
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 hints at an economic context ('1B-user Telegram economy') but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ton_price or ton_jetton_holders. No when-not or prerequisite information is given.
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.