Fetch jetton metadata by master contract address to get symbol, name, supply, and verification status on TON.
Metadata for a jetton (token) by its master contract address: symbol, name, supply, verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| master | Yes | jetton master contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists output fields but omits key behavioral traits such as read-only safety, error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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 with no wasted words. It moves directly from purpose to returned fields.
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, the description helpfully lists four return fields, but does not explain their format or types. It also omits usage guidance and behavioral context, leaving clear gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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%, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description merely repeats 'master contract address' without adding format, constraints, or other semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 resource (jetton metadata) and the retrieval key (master contract address), and lists the returned fields. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like ton_get_jettons, which likely lists jettons for an account rather than metadata for one jetton.
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?
Usage is implied: call this when you have a jetton master address and need its metadata. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool guidance (e.g., versus ton_get_jettons).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.