tonoracle

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden, but it only states 'Bridge flow monitoring', implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data freshness, rate limits, or side effects, which is insufficient for a monitoring tool.

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 is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It could benefit from a brief indication of output or usage hints, though it is not overly verbose.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what the output contains, how to interpret 'flows', or any limitations, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

There are no parameters, and the schema covers 100% of the (empty) set. Per guidelines, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is no need for parameter descriptions.

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 'Bridge flow monitoring for TON' clearly specifies the verb 'monitoring' and the resource 'bridge flows', which distinguishes it from sibling tools covering different DeFi domains like yields, dex volume, and transactions.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no basis for choosing this tool over siblings.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the purpose. It fails to disclose whether the tool returns a list, ranking, or individual yields, or any side effects like data source or update frequency. No information about the affect on system state or required permissions.

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?

While the description is a single concise sentence, it omits essential information. Conciseness without completeness is under-specification, not efficiency. The structure is minimal but inadequate.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., a table of yields). It does not, leaving the agent to guess. The single parameter is undefined, making the tool's behavior ambiguous.

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 only parameter, min_tvl_usd, is not mentioned in the description. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent has no clarification on what this parameter does. The description adds no value beyond the parameter name and type.

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 'Compare DeFi yields across TON protocols' clearly specifies the action (compare) and the resource (DeFi yields across TON protocols). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ton_dex_volume and ton_network_stats by focusing on yields, but lacks detail on what comparing entails (e.g., ranking, list).

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as ton_protocol_list or ton_dex_volume. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or contexts where this tool is appropriate or not.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals that the tool returns volume data but does not mention data freshness, potential latency, or any side effects (likely none). This minimal disclosure is below average for transparency.

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 is a single concise sentence without extraneous information. It is appropriately short but could benefit from more structured detail (e.g., listing output type). Still, it efficiently conveys the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description should be self-contained. It covers the basic purpose but does not specify the granularity of the volume data or any temporal context. It is adequate but lacks comprehensive detail.

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 has zero parameters, so with 100% schema coverage the baseline is 4. The description effectively confirms the purpose but adds no extra parameter meaning, which is acceptable given no parameters exist.

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 provides DEX volume across TON exchanges, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other metrics like yields or transactions. However, it lacks specificity on the type of volume (e.g., total, per exchange) or time frame, preventing a score of 5.

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 implies usage for obtaining DEX volume data, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The context from sibling names helps but the description itself is insufficient.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only vaguely mentions 'checks contract state and CoinGecko listing,' leaving the agent unsure of side effects, error handling, or read-only nature.

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 is extremely concise with two clauses, front-loading the purpose ('Jetton (TON token) risk analysis') and adding a specific action ('Checks contract state and CoinGecko listing') in one sentence.

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?

Given the simple input (one address) and no output schema, the description provides a basic overview but lacks details on return values, behavior for invalid addresses, or timeouts, making it minimally adequate.

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, so baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's 'Jetton master contract address.'

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 performs 'risk analysis' by 'checking contract state and CoinGecko listing', which differentiates it from siblings like ton_defi_yields or ton_transactions that focus on other aspects of TON.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any prerequisites or conditions mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only query by listing return values, but does not explicitly state safety (e.g., no side effects, no authentication required). This is adequate for a simple data retrieval tool but lacks explicit transparency.

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 is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key purpose and outputs. Every word adds value, with no repetition or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the three return values (masterchain seqno, workchain, shard). However, it could be more complete by clarifying if these are static or dynamic values, but overall it suffices for a tool of this simplicity.

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 has no parameters, so the description cannot add parameter-level meaning. Per the guideline, 0 parameters yields a baseline of 4, and no additional detail is needed.

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 TON network info listing three specific data points (masterchain seqno, workchain, shard). It is specific about the resource and the verb 'info' implies retrieval, but it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings that might also return static network data.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ton_transactions or ton_overview. There is no mention of preferences, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it provides an overview but does not disclose data freshness, source, or whether it is real-time or cached. This lack of behavioral context could lead to incorrect assumptions.

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 is a single short sentence that is concise and front-loaded. Every word adds value, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately lists the key data points. However, it could be improved by mentioning whether the data is live or historical, but it is otherwise complete.

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 tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds no additional 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?

The description clearly states it provides a TON ecosystem overview, listing specific data points (price, TVL, protocol count, Telegram integration). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ton_network_stats and ton_dex_volume by focusing on broad ecosystem metrics.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned. However, the tool's purpose implies it is for high-level overview questions. An agent can infer usage from the name and description, but it lacks explicit context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions the output type (TVL, audits, risk grade) but does not disclose safety (e.g., read-only), rate limits, or any side effects. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 is a single, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs with 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?

For a 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately states the output categories (TVL, audits, risk grade) but does not detail the structure or format, which may leave an agent uncertain how to interpret results.

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 parameter 'protocol' has a basic schema description ('Protocol name'), but the tool description enriches meaning by listing example values (DeDust, Ston.fi, etc.), helping the agent infer valid inputs beyond the schema's minimal info.

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 returns 'Protocol health: TVL, audits, risk grade' and lists example protocols, making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like ton_protocol_list or ton_stablecoin_risk, so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, restrictions, or cases where other tools might be more appropriate.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the output content (list ranked by TVL) but omits details on data freshness, rate limits, or any side effects. The agent learns nothing about behavior beyond the result format.

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 is a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is extremely concise and front-loaded with the key information.

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?

Given no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal but adequate for a simple list tool. It tells the agent what to expect (ranked list), but lacks deeper context like whether the list is exhaustive or if it includes pagination.

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 has zero parameters, so description has no parameters to document. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4. The description does not add param info, but that is acceptable.

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 returns all TON DeFi protocols ranked by TVL. It specifies the resource (protocols) and the ordering (by TVL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ton_protocol_health and ton_defi_yields.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit context about when it is appropriate or not, and does not mention any related tools or conditions.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only names the output topic ('supply and risk') without mentioning whether the tool is read-only, data freshness, rate limits, or potential side effects.

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 is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. While concise, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.

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?

Given the complexity of 'stablecoin risk' and the lack of output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It omits details on risk metrics, data granularity, or interpretation, leaving the agent under-informed.

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?

With zero parameters, the input schema is trivial. The description adds value by explaining the tool's output focus, going beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 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 'Stablecoin supply and risk on TON' clearly identifies the data resource, but lacks an explicit verb. It is specific enough to convey the tool's focus, yet does not differentiate from sibling tools.

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?

No usage context or alternatives are provided. With sibling tools like ton_defi_yields and ton_protocol_health, the description offers no guidance on when to choose this tool.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention ordering, pagination, time bounds for 'recent', or any side effects. The description is too vague for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 is extremely short (6 words), which is concise. However, it is under-specified and lacks essential information, making it borderline too brief.

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?

Given no output schema and only two parameters with no documentation, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure of the returned data or any constraints (e.g., maximum limit, address format).

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but adds no parameter details. It does not explain what 'address' or 'limit' mean, their format, or default values. This is a significant gap.

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 'Recent transactions for a TON address' clearly indicates the tool returns transaction data for a given address. It uses a specific resource ('transactions') and is distinct from sibling tools that focus on different TON areas (bridges, yields, etc.).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisites are provided. The agent is left to infer that it should be used for fetching transactions, but without explicit context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully bear the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'balance and state' without detailing what 'state' includes, potential side effects, or any rate limits or permissions needed.

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 is a single concise sentence. It is well front-loaded but could benefit from a brief structure like 'Returns: balance and state fields.'

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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not specify the return format (e.g., units of balance, fields of state). This leaves the agent guessing about the tool's output.

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%, and the parameter 'address' is described. The tool description adds minimal value ('by address') beyond what the schema already provides.

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 returns 'TON wallet balance and state by address', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like 'ton_transactions' or 'ton_network_stats' by focusing on wallet-level data.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It's implied for retrieving wallet info, but no exclusion or context is provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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