Decode ABI-encoded output hex from a contract call. Handles return values, revert reasons (Error(string)), and panic codes (Panic(uint256)).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | Hex-encoded output bytes to decode (0x prefix optional) | |
| method | Yes | Method signature (e.g., 'balanceOf(address)') | |
| contract_address | Yes | Contract address (base58, starts with T; needed to fetch ABI for decoding) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / contract_address / descriptionPrevious value: -"Contract address (needed to fetch ABI for decoding)"New value: +"Contract address (base58, starts with T; needed to fetch ABI for decoding)"Input schema / properties / data / descriptionPrevious value: -"Hex-encoded output bytes to decode"New value: +"Hex-encoded output bytes to decode (0x prefix optional)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says 'Decode ABI-encoded output hex' which implies a non-destructive read operation. However, annotations set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, directly contradicting the nature of decode. This is an annotation contradiction, so the score is 1.
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 concise sentences. The first states the core function, the second adds value by listing supported decode types. No wasted words.
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 is sufficient for a relatively simple tool: it explains what it decodes and the supported error types. No output schema is provided, but the description doesn't need to detail returns for this tool. Given the annotation contradiction, there is a slight incompleteness in behavioral expectations, but overall the description is complete for its purpose.
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 provides descriptive coverage for all 3 parameters (100%). The description adds no additional parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states a specific action: 'Decode ABI-encoded output hex from a contract call.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on decoding output, which none of the listed siblings do.
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 no instructions on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a prior contract call result) or contexts where decoding is appropriate, and no alternatives are named.
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.