Fetch NFTs owned by a TON wallet address, including each item's name, collection, and image. Use it to inspect NFT holdings through read-only blockchain access.
NFTs owned by a TON address (name, collection, image).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| 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 behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated, how many items come back, or the cost/limits. It only lists output fields, leaving the operational profile undocumented.
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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Efficient, though the terseness is arguably under-specification rather than conciseness.
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 list-style tool with a pagination parameter and no output schema, the description omits too much: no pagination semantics, no result-shape beyond three field names, and no behavioral context. An agent can call it, but cannot predict the response well.
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 coverage is 50%: the address parameter is well documented in the schema, but the limit parameter (default 20, max 100) has no description in either schema or description text. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clear resource (NFTs owned by a TON address) and enumerates the returned fields, which implicitly distinguishes it from ton_get_jettons (fungible tokens). However, it never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling, so an agent must infer the NFT-vs-jetton distinction.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus ton_get_account, ton_get_jettons, or ton_get_transactions. The description gives no preconditions, no mention of pagination or what to do for large collections, and no stated exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.