tonoracle

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It implies a read-only monitoring operation but does not explicitly state that it avoids mutations, nor does it disclose any data freshness, return format, or system effects. This lack of detail leaves significant ambiguity about the tool's runtime 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 a single concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and a straightforward monitoring function. Every word contributes to conveying what the tool does.

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 absence of annotations, output schema, and parameters, the description is extremely sparse. It does not explain what data is returned, the time range covered, or how the user might interpret 'bridge flow'. In the context of nine sibling tools, more detail is needed to enable correct selection without additional assumptions.

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 is empty with zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The description adds no parameter information because none exist. As per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, this is sufficient.

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 identifies the tool's resource (bridge flows) and action (monitoring), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as ton_dex_volume and ton_network_stats, which address different domain areas. However, it lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'list' and does not elaborate on what aspect of bridge flows is captured, so it is clear but not fully specific.

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 what scenarios this is appropriate for, nor does it name any sibling tools for comparison. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Compare DeFi yields' without explaining what the output looks like, how min_tvl_usd affects results, or whether any side effects or prerequisites exist.

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 that directly conveys the purpose without wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it omits supporting details that would be useful.

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 sparse schema, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not cover usage context, parameter semantics, or expected output, and it does not help an agent differentiate this tool from its siblings.

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 schema describes min_tvl_usd only by name and type, with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description does not mention or explain this parameter, so the agent receives no context about its meaning beyond its somewhat self-explanatory name.

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' uses a specific verb (compare) and resource (DeFi yields across TON protocols), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ton_dex_volume or ton_protocol_health, which focus on different 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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ton_protocol_health or ton_protocol_list. The description only states the core action and offers no context for selection or exclusions.

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 available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states a metric without revealing return format, aggregation method, data freshness, or any caveats. The agent cannot anticipate what the tool's response looks like or whether it has side effects, leaving behavior opaque.

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 an ultra-short phrase, with no filler words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse. However, it is so minimal that it borders on under-specification rather than elegant conciseness, hence a slight deduction.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It fails to specify what 'volume' means (e.g., 24h volume, total volume), which exchanges are covered, or the response structure. Given the analytic nature of sibling tools, more detail is needed for an agent to confidently select and use it.

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 the schema provides no fields to explain. The description adds value by clarifying the subject of the data (DEX volume on TON), which helps interpret the hypothetical output. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 identifies the resource (DEX volume) and scope (TON exchanges), giving the agent a specific idea of what data to expect. However, it lacks a verb (e.g., 'get' or 'list') and does not differentiate itself from sibling tools like ton_defi_yields or ton_network_stats, though the name itself helps.

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 only states what it returns, with no mention of intended use cases, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools. This is a minimal placeholder, not usage guidance.

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 the full burden. It states the tool 'checks' contract state and CoinGecko listing, conveying a read-only behavior and external dependency on CoinGecko, but lacks explicit safety guarantees, error handling, or rate-limit disclosure.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the tool's purpose with a clear phrase and then elaborate. No unnecessary 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 simple one-parameter tool, the description gives a general idea of the operation but omits what the tool returns. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, the absence of return format details or edge-case behavior leaves some ambiguity for the 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?

The only parameter 'address' is already described in the schema as 'Jetton master contract address', so the description adds minimal extra meaning. The mention of 'risk analysis' and 'contract state' provides context but doesn't introduce semantics beyond the schema's 100% coverage.

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 identifies the tool's function: performing risk analysis on Jettons (TON tokens) by checking contract state and CoinGecko listing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on other TON aspects like DEX volume, bridges, or stablecoin risk.

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 clear context that this tool is for Jetton risk assessment, implying when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, such as using ton_stablecoin_risk for stablecoin risk.

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 behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only informational query by saying 'network info,' but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, any authentication needs, rate limits, or return format specifics. For a tool with zero annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 core concept ('TON network info') and immediately lists the key fields. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler. This is an exemplary minimal description.

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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description lists the essential data points and implies a read-only stats retrieval. It is complete enough for a basic informational tool, though it could benefit from confirming that an object containing these fields is returned.

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 the schema already covers everything. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but since there are no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies. It could have mentioned 'no inputs required' to reinforce usability, but this is not necessary.

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 identifies the resource (TON network) and specific data points (masterchain seqno, workchain, shard), distinguishing it from sibling tools focused on other aspects like DeFi or transactions. However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'get' or 'retrieve'), making it slightly less sharp than a fully specified purpose.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The siblings like ton_overview or ton_wallet_info are not referenced, and there are no stated exclusions or prerequisites. The tool is simply described without any contextual framing.

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 the full burden. It lists the included metrics but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the data is aggregated from multiple sources, how recent it is, or what the return format looks like. The description is essentially a label, not a behavioral disclosure.

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, efficient line that front-loads the key information. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no wasted text or repetition.

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 provides the essential context needed to select the tool: what ecosystem area it covers and which metrics it includes. It could slightly improve by noting how the overview is presented, but it is complete enough for a 0-param tool.

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 the schema already fully covers parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 applies, and the description adds no unnecessary parameter detail, which 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 clearly names the resource ('TON ecosystem') and specifies the scope of the overview: price, TVL, protocol count, and Telegram integration. This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on individual metrics like DEX volume or network stats, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The word 'overview' implies it is for high-level information, but it does not state when a more specific tool should be used instead, nor does it mention any alternatives.

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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It names the data points returned (TVL, audits, risk grade) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, any permission requirements, error behavior for invalid protocol names, or response format details. This falls short for an unannotated 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 sentence that uses a colon efficiently to list key output metrics and protocol examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter lookup tool.

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 low complexity (1 param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential purpose and output fields, but remains incomplete. It does not specify whether the listed protocols are exhaustive, how to format the protocol name (e.g., case sensitivity), or what happens for unsupported protocols. This is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 schema describes 'protocol' as 'Protocol name' with 100% coverage, but the description adds meaningful context by listing specific protocol examples (DeDust, Ston.fi, Tonstakers, EVAA). This helps the agent infer likely valid values and the tool's scope, going beyond the schema's generic label.

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 indicates the tool provides protocol health metrics (TVL, audits, risk grade) and names specific protocols, making its purpose unambiguous. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'fetch', so it's a noun-phrase description rather than a full action statement. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on health metrics rather than yields or volume.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when protocol health data is needed, but does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate. With ten sibling tools, this lack of differentiation guidance is a notable gap.

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 carries the burden. 'Ranked by TVL' discloses ordering behavior, and zero parameters imply no side effects, but there is no mention of data freshness, comprehensiveness, or fields returned. It is not misleading but lacks depth.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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 zero-parameter listing tool, the description covers purpose and ranking criterion well. It does not explain output shape or recency, but given the simplicity and sibling context, it is nearly 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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema already fully covers the empty parameter list, and the description adds no parameter semantics—none are 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?

Description uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('TON DeFi protocols') and ranking criterion ('by TVL'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ton_defi_yields and ton_dex_volume by focusing on protocol-level TVL ordering.

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 use when a user wants TVL rankings, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention alternative tools. No exclusions or contextual switching guidance is provided.

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 the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the topic, not what the tool does (e.g., returns a list, a metric), nor any limitations or safety characteristics.

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 phrase with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently sized.

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?

The description is too terse to be complete. Without an output schema or annotations, the agent cannot infer what the response will contain (e.g., a list of stablecoins, a risk score, historical data). The term 'risk' is 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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. No parameter description is needed, and the description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics.

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 identifies the resource ('Stablecoin supply and risk on TON') and differentiates from siblings by topic, but lacks a specific verb like 'get' or 'list'. It's more of a subject label than an action statement.

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 sibling tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or suitable scenarios.

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?

There are no annotations, so the description must carry full disclosure. It does not mention ordering, pagination, time range, or other behavioral details of 'recent transactions'. The description is minimal and offers little beyond the core purpose.

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 easy to read but under-specified. It is concise but sacrifices informative content, making it less useful than a slightly longer description that explains parameters or behavior.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description is the only source of context. It fails to describe return values, parameter semantics, or any operational caveats, making it incomplete for even a simple two-parameter tool.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no elaboration on the 'address' or 'limit' parameters. It only says 'a TON address' which implicitly relates to the address parameter, but no meaning is added for limit or address format.

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 identifies the resource (transactions for a TON address) and the general action (retrieving recent ones). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ton_defi_yields or ton_dex_volume by focusing specifically on transactions, though it lacks a strong imperative verb like 'list' or 'get'.

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 such as ton_wallet_info or ton_overview. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer 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, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'balance and state' but does not clarify what 'state' includes (e.g., active/frozen, code hash, timestamps), nor does it disclose potential rate limits, error conditions, or response shape. The read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 phrase with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the key nouns ('balance and state') and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose. The only shortcoming is that it may be too terse to fully explain the tool, but conciseness itself is well-executed.

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?

The tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), so the description need not be extensive. However, it leaves ambiguity around what 'state' encompasses and gives no expectation of the return structure. For a read-only wallet info tool, this is adequate but has clear gaps in explaining the 'state' portion.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a description ('TON wallet address'). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already covers, so the baseline of 3 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 clearly states the tool's resource: TON wallet balance and state, scoped by address. It implies a read operation (get wallet info) and distinguishes from sibling tools like ton_transactions, which focus on transaction history. However, it lacks an explicit verb, so it's not maximally specific.

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 sibling tools or scenarios where wallet info is needed over other TON tools. The usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and description.

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