Comprehensive account overview: balance, resources, staking, voting, permissions, and delegations in a single call
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | TRON base58 address (starts with T) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description presents the tool as a read-only overview, but the annotations mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. This is a direct contradiction, as no destructive behavior is disclosed. The description fails to clarify what destructive actions might occur.
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 sentence that packs a clear list of contents and immediately states the tool's value proposition. No unnecessary words 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 description lists the included data categories, which is useful for understanding the return scope. However, with no output schema and no mention of side effects (especially given destructiveHint=true), the description leaves significant gaps in what the agent should expect.
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 schema already describes the address parameter fully ('TRON base58 address (starts with T)') with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('overview') and enumerates the covered account aspects (balance, resources, staking, voting, permissions, delegations), clearly distinguishing this aggregated tool from the more granular get_account/get_account_resources siblings.
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 phrase 'comprehensive account overview' implies using this when one needs a complete account snapshot, providing clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
Several tool groups have overlapping responsibilities (e.g., get_energy_prices/get_bandwidth_prices/get_chain_parameters, get_pending_transactions/get_pending_by_address/is_transaction_pending, and analyze_account vs get_account plus its resource/permission variants). These create boundary confusion despite clear descriptions, and with 43 tools an agent will likely select the wrong one occasionally.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_account, transfer_trx, delegate_resource, unfreeze_balance). Even the few multi-word verbs (estimate_energy, trigger_constant_contract) remain predictable. No camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 43 tools, the server is heavy. While the TRON domain is broad, the tool surface is bloated with many near-synonyms and split functionalities that could be consolidated. The rubric flags 25+ tools as too many; 43 clearly exceeds that.
The server covers a wide range of read and transaction-building operations, including staking, governance, contracts, and TRC20. However, it lacks critical lifecycle steps: there is no sign or broadcast tool, and no ability to deploy contracts or create accounts. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns unsigned transactions.