TON ecosystem overview: price, TVL, protocol count, Telegram integration
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": "ton_overview"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.