Estimate the cost of a TRX or TRC20 transfer: energy, bandwidth, and TRX burn options
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Recipient TRON address (base58) | |
| from | Yes | Sender TRON address (base58) | |
| amount | Yes | Amount to transfer (e.g., '100') | |
| contract_address | No | TRC20 contract address (omit for TRX transfer) |
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 says 'Estimate' which implies a read-only operation, but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, indicating the tool may alter state or be destructive. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not address the 'TRX burn options' side effects or explain why destructiveHint is true.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the main action and key differentiators. Each word adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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 no output schema and the annotations include a confusing destructiveHint. The description does not explain the return format of the cost estimate, the meaning of 'TRX burn options', or why the tool might be destructive. This is under-specified for an agent to invoke and interpret results confidently.
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 all parameters (from, to, amount, contract_address) are already described. The description adds little beyond the schema, only referencing TRC20 transfers via contract_address which is already in the schema. It does not clarify which parameter controls the 'TRX burn options'.
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's purpose: 'Estimate the cost of a TRX or TRC20 transfer'. It specifies the resource (transfer) and the components covered (energy, bandwidth, and TRX burn options), distinguishing it from sibling tools like estimate_energy and transfer_trx.
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 implies use when a full cost estimate for a transfer is needed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It names the coverage (energy, bandwidth, burn) but does not compare with estimate_energy or estimate_trc20_energy, so guidance is only implied.
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.