TRC20 payment instruments

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 does disclose the 'up to 8' input cap and that calls are free, which is real value. But it says nothing about what happens with more than 8 addresses, whether invalid addresses error or are skipped, the cost/latency profile, or the shape of the response beyond one named field.

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 input-output contract, then the interpretation, then the cost. Every sentence carries information; the trailing 'Free.' is terse but legitimately useful and costs almost nothing.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential contract but leaves the exact meaning of 'shared_share' (count of payer addresses appearing in two or more of the given addresses?) to inference. A read-only analytic like this needs no destructive-behavior warnings, but the response semantics should be pinned down since no output schema exists.

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 100% and the single parameter is documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description earns above that by adding a constraint absent from the schema: a maximum of 8 addresses. It does not clarify delimiters or whitespace handling, which the schema's 'comma-separated' only partly covers.

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 concrete input (up to 8 TRON addresses) and a concrete output (how many PAYER addresses they share, named as shared_share), plus the interpretive meaning of that number. It is not tautological with the name at all — it actually disambiguates the cryptic 'are_these_a_market' label. It stops short of naming which sibling tool it competes with, so no sibling differentiation credit.

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 is only implied through the interpretation sentence: 'High means they are a few wallets transacting with each other, not independent businesses' tells an agent the scenario (checking whether addresses are independent). There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling like tron_address_facts for per-address analysis.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully states that the data is live, comes with a signed receipt, and is free, but it does not explain read-only behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the signed receipt is a response field or side effect.

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 compact sentence with a short clarifying fragment. It is front-loaded, has zero wasted wording, and immediately communicates the resource and notable traits.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it lists representative returned fields and mentions the signed receipt. It leaves some ambiguity about the full response shape and how this tool relates to the sibling fetch_with_receipt.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids parameter details because there are none to document.

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 names a specific resource, live TRON chain parameters, and enumerates representative fields such as getEnergyFee, fees, and memo fee. However, it omits a clear verb like 'fetch' and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as fetch_with_receipt or trc20_transfer_cost.

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 adds 'Free' and 'with a signed receipt', which implies no cost, but it never states when to choose this tool over siblings like fetch_with_receipt or trc20_transfer_cost. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-selection guidance are provided.

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

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the behavioral load and does it reasonably well: it discloses that no authentication is required, that the target must be on an allowlist, and that the response includes a status code, byte count, hash, preview and signature. It stops short of describing rate limits, error behavior for non-allowlisted URLs, or whether fetches are cached.

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 packs the operation, the eligibility constraint, the credential-free nature, and the exact return fields with no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the operation, the access model, the eligibility rule, and the return fields — enough to call it correctly. The main remaining gap is how the allowlist is determined and what happens on rejection.

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 0% for the single 'url' parameter, so the description must supply meaning, and it does partially by stating the URL must be a public, allowlisted one. It adds no detail on accepted schemes, whether redirects are followed, or size limits, which leaves a meaningful gap for a 1-parameter 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Free signed fetch of an allowlisted public URL') and lists what the response carries (http_status, bytes, sha256, preview, ES256 signature). The qualifiers 'free', 'no key, no account' implicitly contrast with a paid sibling such as fetch_with_receipt, but no sibling is named, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 key, no account' signals the context in which this tool applies (credential-free access), and 'allowlisted' signals a constraint. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do if the URL is not allowlisted, and no named alternative for cases needing different fidelity.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real value by enumerating the receipt payload (status, bytes, sha256, content-type, elapsed ms, UTC times) and the price model. It stops short of the mechanics an agent needs: whether payment is pre-authorized, what error is returned when unpaid, whether the URL must be publicly reachable, and whether the fetch is retried or cached.

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 pricing and receipt fields are front-loaded efficiently, but the trailing sentence about the tool explaining payment is confusing rather than informative and undercuts the lead. Two sentences, one of which creates ambiguity rather than resolving it.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape and cost model reasonably well. It is incomplete on the payment lifecycle and on what the agent should do if the call is refused for lack of funds, which is the central risk of a paid tool.

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 0% and the single 'url' property is an untyped-in-practice string with no format hints, so the description must compensate. It adds the meaningful constraint that the URL must be public and that it is fetched exactly once, but gives no syntax, scheme restrictions, or length limits.

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 opening states a concrete verb and resource ('one public URL fetched once, with a signed receipt'), which is specific enough to tell it apart from fetch_free. However, the closing sentence ('Calling this free tool explains exactly how to pay and what you get') reframes the same tool as a free informational endpoint, so an agent cannot be sure whether invoking it performs a fetch or merely returns payment instructions.

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 'PAID (5 USDT TRC20 buys ten URL-days)' framing implies a paid tier exists, but the description never names fetch_free as the free alternative or states the condition under which the paid receipt is worth it. No prerequisites are given for how payment must be arranged before or during the call, leaving selection between siblings to inference.

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

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful behavior: values are live ("right now", "live chain price"), the call is free, and the response covers energy band plus activation status — but it says nothing about error cases, missing/invalid addresses, caching, or whether a network round-trip is involved.

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 front-loaded sentence that enumerates exactly the three things the caller gets, followed by a terse "Free." fragment. Dense and waste-free; the only nit is that the colon-separated list plus fragment reads a little clipped.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned components (energy band, burned TRX at live price, activation flag), covering the missing return documentation. The remaining gap is behavior when `to` is absent, which matters since the parameter is not required.

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 100%, so the single `to` parameter is already documented in structured data. The description adds some meaning by tying the recipient to the energy-band outcome (activated vs new recipient), but it never explains that `to` is optional or what the tool returns when it is omitted.

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 resource and measurement: the cost of a USDT-TRC20 transfer to the sender, broken into energy band, TRX burned, and recipient activation. The verb is implicit ("what ... costs") rather than an explicit action like "estimate" or "compute", and no sibling tool is named for contrast, but the scope is unmistakable.

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 is implied by "right now" and "Free" — an agent can infer this is a live, no-cost lookup to run before sending USDT. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to an alternative (e.g. chain_params for general chain state), so the agent must infer routing.

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

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this is a read-only public-chain lookup and that it is free, plus exactly which facts come back, but it omits what happens for malformed or non-activated addresses and whether any auth or rate limits apply.

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 names the purpose, the use moment, and the return fields with no filler. Slightly dense colon-list format, but every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by listing the five returned facts, which is enough for a one-parameter lookup tool. The remaining gap is error/edge-case behavior for invalid addresses, which matters for a tool whose main risk is a typo'd address.

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 single parameter is fully documented in the schema as a base58 TRON address starting with T, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only contextual framing (an address you intend to send USDT to) and no format, validation, or edge-case detail beyond 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 concrete verb and resource ('Public chain facts about a TRON address') and enumerates the returned facts (activation status, age, TRX balance, USDT balance, tx count). It is clearly distinct from cost-oriented siblings like trc20_transfer_cost, though it never names or contrasts any sibling explicitly.

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?

'before you send USDT to it' gives a clear triggering scenario, which is more than most tools provide. It stops short of stating exclusions or naming alternatives (e.g., trc20_transfer_cost for fee estimation), so the agent must infer when another sibling is the better fit.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: the operation is a lookup (read-only by nature) and it is free, which matters for quota/cost planning. It omits rate limits, authentication requirements, and what happens for URLs with no snapshot, so the disclosure is partial rather than complete.

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 plus a one-word cost note — nothing is wasted and the core question is front-loaded. The 'Free.' fragment is slightly abrupt but conveys a real decision-relevant fact efficiently.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup tool, the description covers the essentials: what is checked and what information comes back (existence plus timestamp). Remaining gaps — URL format and no-snapshot behavior — are minor for a tool this simple.

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 0% and the single property is a bare string, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It establishes that the parameter is the URL to look up, but adds no format requirements (absolute URL, scheme handling, encoding) that would prevent malformed calls.

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 names a specific resource (the Wayback Machine) and the exact question it answers: whether a given URL is archived and when. The verb is phrased as a question rather than a directive, but an agent can still immediately tell what the tool does and that it is distinct from every sibling (none of which touch web archives).

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 is only implied by the question itself — call it when you need archive status for a URL. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or routing to an alternative (e.g., a live-fetch tool like fetch_free) when the page is not archived. The single word 'Free' hints at a cost trade-off but does not constitute guidance.

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