get_account
Destructive
Get TRON account balance and details including TRX balance, bandwidth, energy, frozen resources, and account type
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | TRON base58 address (starts with T) |
GoTRON MCP Server
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
B3/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=true, implying a mutating, destructive operation. The description's leading verb 'Get' and its reference to reading balance and details directly contradicts these annotations, making the safety profile confusing and potentially dangerous for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource, and lists the key return categories without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and every phrase earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
There is no output schema, yet the description does not clarify the return format or structure. The contradictory annotations (destructiveHint=true) leave the tool's safety context ambiguous, and given the many sibling tools, the description fails to position this tool clearly, resulting in an incomplete contextual picture.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already fully describes the single 'address' parameter with type and format (base58 address starting with T), giving a schema coverage of 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the explanatory burden and 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.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource as 'TRON account', then enumerates the specific details returned (TRX balance, bandwidth, energy, frozen resources, and account type). This clearly distinguishes the tool from more specialized siblings like get_account_resources or get_account_permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools. It does not mention that get_account is the general-purpose balance/details tool, nor does it direct users to specific siblings for resource-only or permission-only queries, so the agent receives no decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
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.
Naming Consistency5/5
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.
Tool Count2/5
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.
Completeness3/5
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.