Retrieve recent transactions for a TON wallet address, including type, GRAM amount, counterparty, and comment. Use it to inspect address activity without private keys.
Recent transactions/events for a TON address — type, GRAM amount, counterparty, comment.
| 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. It usefully discloses the shape of each returned item (type, GRAM amount, counterparty, comment), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about ordering, pagination beyond the limit cap, 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?
A single front-loaded sentence that lists the returned fields with zero filler. It is efficient, though the em-dash fragment style is terse rather than fully structured.
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 and one undocumented parameter, the description should do more, but it does at least enumerate the return fields. Missing limit behavior, ordering, and any sense of how many results constitute 'recent' leave gaps.
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 only 50%: the address parameter is documented in the schema, but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description does not compensate — it never mentions the result-count cap (default 10, max 100), which is the main semantic gap for this tool.
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+resource (get transactions/events for a TON address) plus the scope ('recent') and the fields returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ton_get_jettons or ton_get_nfts by resource, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ton_get_account, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The agent must infer usage purely from the resource name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.