Provides tools for interacting with the TON blockchain, including wallet balances, token prices on STON.fi, liquidity pools, market overview, token search, transaction history, and blockchain state information.
MCP-сервер для данных блокчейна TON: балансы кошельков, цены токенов, пулы ликвидности STON.fi, обзор рынка.
Подключается к любому AI-агенту, поддерживающему MCP.
Related MCP server: solana-mcp-server
{
"mcpServers": {
"ton-data": {
"url": "https://Som919-ton-mcp-server.hf.space/mcp",
"headers": { "X-API-Key": "demo" }
}
}
}get_balance — баланс TON кошелька
get_token_price — цена токена на STON.fi
get_market_overview — обзор рынка TON
search_tokens — поиск токенов
get_transactions — последние транзакции
get_blockchain_info — состояние блокчейна
Получить баланс TON кошелька по адресу. Адрес начинается с EQ или UQ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only (getting balance) and adds the address format constraint, but doesn't discuss other behaviors like rate limits or errors. For a simple balance check, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Single sentence in Russian, front-loaded with the action and resource, no wasted words. Perfectly concise.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, output schema present), the description is mostly complete. It could mention return value structure, but the output schema likely covers that.
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 has 0% description coverage for the sole parameter. The description compensates by specifying that the address must start with 'EQ' or 'UQ', providing crucial format constraints beyond the type string.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves the TON wallet balance for a given address, includes the address format constraint (starts with EQ or UQ), and is distinct from sibling tools like get_blockchain_info or get_token_price.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, but the purpose is straightforward and implied usage is clear given the specific action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Текущее состояние блокчейна TON (номер блока, шард)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'current state' implying real-time data, but does not disclose potential latency, authentication needs, or other behavioral traits. Given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate but minimal.
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, short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no waste. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 simple, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It mentions the key outputs (block number and shard) and is sufficient given the sibling context.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema provides no information. The description adds value by specifying that the output includes block number and shard information, which goes beyond the empty 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?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves the current state of the TON blockchain, specifying block number and shard. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_balance or get_transactions, which focus on accounts or transactions.
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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool. However, since it is the only tool providing general blockchain state, usage is implied. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Обзор рынка TON: текущий блок блокчейна, цена TON к USDT
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions returning 'current blockchain block' and 'TON price to USDT' but omits critical details: whether it makes external calls, caches data, requires authentication, or has side effects. Given zero parameters, it is likely read-only, but this is not stated.
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 concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separate block and price info).
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?
Given no parameters and the existence of an output schema (which should document return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it only mentions block and price, which may not fully represent a 'market overview' (e.g., volume, market cap missing). The absence of the output schema limits assessment, but the description could be more comprehensive.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%. Per guidelines, 0 parameters baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since there are no parameters.
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 clearly states the tool provides a market overview for TON, including current blockchain block and TON/USDT price. The verb 'get' and resource 'market_overview' are explicit, but no differentiation from siblings like get_blockchain_info or get_token_price is provided.
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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (e.g., get_blockchain_info for detailed blockchain data or get_token_price for price alone). There is no mention of context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Получить цену токена на STON.fi по его контракту. Для TON используй адрес EQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM9c
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token_address | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the use of STON.fi DEX and the required address format, but omits details like rate limits, error handling, or authentication. For a simple price query, this is minimal but adequate.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every word adds value.
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?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the essentials. It could mention the return format, but the output schema likely provides that. The special TON address adds useful context.
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 0%, but the description clarifies that the token_address parameter is the contract address and provides an example for TON. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 clearly states the verb 'get', the resource 'token price on STON.fi', and the method 'by its contract'. It also provides a specific address for TON, making its purpose distinct from siblings like get_balance and search_tokens.
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?
The description explicitly notes that the tool fetches prices from STON.fi via contract address and gives a special case for TON. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like get_balance or search_tokens for other needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Последние транзакции TON кошелька
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states 'latest transactions.' It does not mention output format, ordering, pagination, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only (implied but not explicit).
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 very concise (one sentence), but it is in Russian while the rest of the tool definition is in English, potentially confusing the agent. It is front-loaded with essential action but lacks structure.
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?
Given the tool has two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not specify ordering, range, or usage context, leaving the agent to infer functionality from the name and schema alone.
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?
The description does not explain the 'address' or 'limit' parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, so the agent has no semantic understanding of these parameters beyond their names and types.
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 'Latest transactions of TON wallet' clearly indicates the tool retrieves recent transactions for a wallet, distinguishing it from siblings like get_balance. However, it does not explicitly mention the address parameter or specify that it returns data for a given wallet address.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_tokens or get_blockchain_info. The description lacks context for when to prefer get_transactions over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Поиск токенов на STON.fi по названию или символу
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits like whether the search is case-sensitive, supports partial matches, or the safety profile (read-only). The agent is left guessing.
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?
Single sentence with no redundant information. Every word adds value.
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?
Given the tool has only 2 parameters and an output schema, the description provides the essential purpose. However, it omits expected output shape or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps for agent execution.
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?
The description compensates for 0% schema coverage by indicating the query parameter accepts a name or symbol. The limit parameter is self-explanatory due to its type and default. However, no additional details about query format or result structure.
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 clearly states that the tool searches tokens by name or symbol on STON.fi, which is a specific and unambiguous action. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_token_price, though the verb 'search' and resource 'tokens' are sufficiently distinct.
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 alternatives (e.g., get_token_price for price lookups). The description lacks contextual information about prerequisites or common use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0get_balanceget_blockchain_infoget_market_overviewget_token_priceget_transactionssearch_tokensEach tool targets a distinct aspect of TON data: wallet balance, blockchain state, market overview, token price, transactions, and token search. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_balance, search_tokens), making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
6 tools is well-scoped for a TON data server, covering key data points without being too sparse or bloated.
The set covers essential TON data operations (balance, transactions, blockchain info, market data, token queries). Minor gaps exist, such as missing account state or NFT data, but core workflows are supported.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
MCP server giving AI agents one-connection access to crypto & DeFi data: DeFi protocol TVL, stableco
MCP server connecting AI agents to non-custodial staking data across 130+ networks.
Crypto trading intelligence MCP — 34+ endpoints, x402 pay-per-use, AI agent strategy & execution
Native Solana staking for AI agents. 26 MCP tools, one-shot signing, webhooks.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/M1mino/ton-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server