get_onchain_statusGet live blockchain state for your pool: TRX balance, frozen resources (Energy/Bandwidth), voting status, claimable rewards, and delegated resources. Data is fetched directly from TRON blockchain. Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| poolAddress | No | Pool address to check. If omitted, uses your first registered pool. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds auth needs ('Requires API key') and data source ('fetched directly from TRON blockchain'), which are valuable behavioral traits. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, but the verb 'Get' strongly implies it.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by essential operational details. No redundant or vague language.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description's list of included data serves as an implicit return value breakdown. It covers the key operational requirement (API key) and data source, though it could mention the read-only nature explicitly.
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 already fully documents the single poolAddress parameter, including default behavior if omitted (100% schema coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, meeting the baseline 3.
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 uses the specific verb 'Get' and names the resource 'live blockchain state for your pool', enumerating the included data (TRX balance, frozen resources, voting status, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_balance or get_pool_stats.
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 provides clear context: it's for on-chain pool status, directly from TRON. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of the highest tier.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.