Top up a Telegram account with GRAM

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Returns messages[] to sign with @ton/mcp', indicating the tool builds an order and returns a signing payload rather than directly executing the top-up. This adds meaningful context beyond the tool name, though it does not cover all side effects or prerequisites.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. The first sentence states what it does, the second explains the output, and the third adds the restriction 'GRAM only'. No filler or repetition.

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?

The tool has 4 parameters, a nested wallet object, and no output schema. The description does not explain the wallet parameter, the expected format of 'recipient' or 'amount', or the structure of the returned messages[]. While it mentions the return type, it leaves significant gaps for the agent to invoke the tool correctly, making it incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 only 25% (only 'referrer' has a description). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning: it does not clarify 'recipient', 'amount', or the nested 'wallet' object. While 'recipient' and 'amount' are somewhat self-explanatory from their names, 'wallet' is ambiguous and the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action: 'Build an order to top up one Telegram account with GRAM (the native chain coin).' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like hoton_topup_gram_bulk by specifying 'one Telegram account' and 'GRAM only'.

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 context is implied through 'one Telegram account' and 'GRAM only', which suggests this is for single GRAM top-ups rather than bulk or other currencies. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like hoton_topup_gram_bulk or state when not to use this tool, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.