SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

TON jetton masters from TON Center's public API: the newest

crypto_ton_blockchain_jettons

Read-only

TON jetton (token) masters from TON Center's public API: the newest N jetton masters (1 to 10) with raw address, total supply in base units, mintable flag, admin address and metadata URI. Jetton holder balances and Toncoin staking are not included. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "crypto_ton_blockchain_jettons"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	How many jetton masters, 1 to 10 (default 5)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	No
`source`	No
`masters`	No
`checkedAt`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the monetization behavior that materially affects invocation: $0.002 USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. It also identifies the upstream data source and the units convention (base units), which annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the resource and source, then the returned fields, then exclusions and cost. No filler, though the field enumeration is dense and slightly overlaps what the output schema already provides.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-optional-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers source, scope, units, exclusions and cost — everything needed to call it correctly. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior on an out-of-range limit, but those are minor given the schema constraint and output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'limit' parameter already documents the 1-10 range and default of 5. The description's 'newest N' adds the ordering semantic (recency, not arbitrary selection), but nothing beyond that — baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource (TON jetton masters), the source (TON Center's public API), and the exact scope (the newest 1-10 masters) plus the returned fields (raw address, total supply in base units, mintable flag, admin address, metadata URI). It also draws a boundary against adjacent data ('Jetton holder balances and Toncoin staking are not included'), so an agent can separate it from token-holder and staking siblings without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'newest N' framing plus explicit exclusions tell the agent the context in which this tool is appropriate (a discovery/list of jetton master contracts, not per-wallet balances or staking data). It stops short of naming a specific alternative sibling to use instead when holder balances are needed, so the routing is implied rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?