Retrieve the gifts owned and hosted by a specified Telegram user, with pagination and filters for unique, limited, unlimited, and blockchain items.
Get the gifts owned and hosted by a user (v9.3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| user_id | Yes | User ID | |
| sort_by_price | No | ||
| exclude_unique | No | ||
| exclude_unlimited | No | ||
| exclude_from_blockchain | No | ||
| exclude_limited_upgradable | No | ||
| exclude_limited_non_upgradable | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond a version tag — it does not mention pagination behavior, what 'owned' versus 'hosted' means in the result, or how the exclusion filters affect the response.
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; the only wasted token is the trailing version marker '(v9.3)', which conveys nothing to an agent choosing a 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?
With nine parameters, near-zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin to let an agent call this correctly. It should at minimum explain the owned/hosted distinction and the purpose of the pagination and exclusion parameters.
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 only 11% (only user_id is documented), so the description carries the burden for the remaining eight parameters. It says nothing about limit, offset, sort_by_price, or the five exclude_* boolean filters, leaving their meaning and defaults entirely opaque.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get the gifts owned and hosted by a user'), which is clear enough to distinguish it from write operations like send_gift or transfer_gift. However, it never distinguishes itself from closely related read siblings such as get_chat_gifts, get_available_gifts, or get_business_account_gifts.
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 call this tool versus the other gift-listing tools in the sibling set, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing the user to be known or the bot to share context with them. The agent must infer the use case from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.