Estimate energy cost for a TRC20 transfer without creating a transaction. Dry-runs the transfer to check energy requirements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Recipient address (base58, starts with T) | |
| from | Yes | Sender address (base58, starts with T) | |
| amount | Yes | Amount in human-readable units (e.g., '100.5' for 100.5 USDT) | |
| contract_address | Yes | TRC20 contract address (base58, 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 states 'without creating a transaction' and 'dry-runs', which directly contradicts the annotation destructiveHint=true. This is a major inconsistency. The description also adds some behavioral context (no transaction created), but the contradiction invalidates that benefit.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and adds the dry-run behavior without any fluff. Every word 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?
The description lacks details about the return value or output format (no output schema exists), and it fails to reconcile the destructiveHint annotation. For a tool that estimates energy, the agent would benefit from knowing what the response contains (e.g., energy units, cost) and any prerequisites or side effects. The contradiction further reduces completeness.
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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (from, to, amount, contract_address) have descriptions. The tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 the tool's purpose: 'Estimate energy cost for a TRC20 transfer without creating a transaction.' It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and resource ('TRC20 transfer'), and the 'without creating a transaction' and 'dry-runs' details distinguish it from actual transfer tools like transfer_trc20.
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 when to use this tool ('without creating a transaction', 'dry-runs') which is a clear context for estimation versus actual transfer. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient to guide the agent.
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.