Check any TON wallet's GRAM balance, status, and wallet flag by address, with support for raw and friendly formats.
Get a TON account's GRAM balance (the native token, formerly Toncoin), status, and wallet flag. Network is TON; balances are 1:1 GRAM↔TON.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | TON wallet address — raw (0:…) or friendly (EQ…/UQ…) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Get' and clarifies token naming (GRAM vs TON), which is helpful context. However, it does not state that the operation is safe, free of side effects, or subject to any rate limits or permissions, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.
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 with zero waste. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds useful token-naming context.
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 account-get tool with no output schema, the description lists the return fields (balance, status, wallet flag) and notes the network and token equivalence, which is substantial. It falls short of 5 because it does not explain what 'status' or 'wallet flag' represent, leaving 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'address' parameter with format details. The description adds no additional semantics for the parameter, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('TON account's GRAM balance, status, and wallet flag'), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like ton_get_jettons and ton_get_transactions by focusing on account-level fields. However, it does not explicitly name any sibling tool to contrast with, so it lacks the full sibling differentiation seen in top-tier definitions.
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 such as ton_get_jettons or ton_get_transactions. It simply states what it does, leaving usage context entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.