Resolve a TON DNS name like foundation.ton to its wallet address. Use it to convert human-readable .ton domains into blockchain addresses.
Resolve a TON DNS name (e.g. foundation.ton) to its wallet address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | TON DNS name, with or without the .ton suffix |
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. It does not state what happens when a name does not resolve, whether the call requires network access, whether the result is cached, or what error shape to expect; read-only nature is only inferable from the verb 'Resolve'.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with verb and subject, no filler. Nothing redundant.
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 single-parameter resolver with no output schema, stating the return value ('wallet address') is the key piece and it is present. Only failure/edge-case behavior for unresolvable names is left unaddressed.
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 there (pattern, length, '.ton suffix optional'). The description's inline example 'foundation.ton' adds only marginal value over the schema.
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 ('Resolve') and resource ('TON DNS name'), and names the output ('to its wallet address'), which distinguishes it from every sibling (ton_get_account, ton_get_transactions, ton_validate_address, etc.). An agent can identify the tool's job without opening the schema.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternates such as ton_validate_address (which validates an address) or ton_get_account (which fetches by address). Usage is only implied by the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.