TON/GRAM and jetton spot prices in USD with 24h change. Send { tokens? } (default ton). [x402 paid tool — price $0.001; POST /api/ton/price]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tokens | No | Comma tokens/addresses (default ton) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses cost ($0.001) and endpoint, but does not mention rate limits, authentication, or error behavior. The paid nature is a useful behavioral trait, but overall transparency is limited.
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?
Description is concise with a single sentence plus bracketed metadata. Front-loads the main function. The bracket info is useful but slightly cluttered; overall no wasted words.
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?
Covers the main purpose and default parameter, but lacks details about the output format/return structure (e.g., keys like price and change). Since no output schema exists, description should clarify what the agent receives.
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% for the single parameter 'tokens' with its own description. The description restates the default ('default ton') and optional nature, adding no new meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states 'TON/GRAM and jetton spot prices in USD with 24h change', specifying the resource and action. Distinguishes from siblings like 'ton_jetton' and 'crypto_price' by focusing on TON/GRAM and jettons.
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?
Implies usage for getting TON/GRAM and jetton prices, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'crypto_price' or 'ton_balance'. No exclusions or context for selection.
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.