Look up the recorded market price history of a Telegram username: peak and latest on-chain sale (in TON), live auction state, and bid activity, from public TON blockchain records. Free, no API key needed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | The Telegram username to look up (without @) |
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 discloses that data comes from public TON blockchain records, states no API key is needed, and enumerates the return content (peak/latest sale, auction state, bid activity). However, it does not mention rate limits, error behavior, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation. With no annotations, this is adequate but modest.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the verb and resource, then lists key details; the second sentence adds access information. Every phrase contributes value and the structure is scannable.
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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, data source, and cost/authentication aspects. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but given the tool's simplicity, it is reasonably complete and informative enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 covers 100% of the single parameter (username), including the clarification 'without @'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it aligns with the baseline expected when schema coverage is high.
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 function: looking up recorded market price history for a Telegram username, with specific data points (peak/latest sale, auction state, bid activity). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like namesniper_check (availability) or namesniper_watch (tracking) by focusing on price history and on-chain auction 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 implies the tool is for price history lookups and mentions it is free and requires no API key, which is a useful prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling tools or provide any exclusions or alternative guidance. The context is clear but not formally differentiated.
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.