Get the ABI of a smart contract on TRON. Automatically resolves proxy contracts (ERC-1967). Note: many TRON contracts are deployed without on-chain ABI — if empty, check TronScan for verified source code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contract_address | Yes | Smart contract address (base58, starts with T) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / contract_address / descriptionPrevious value: -"Smart contract address"New value: +"Smart contract address (base58, starts with T)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations include destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, which directly contradict the description's 'Get' action that is clearly non-destructive and read-only. This is a severe annotation contradiction, and per the rubric, transparency must be scored 1 when the description contradicts annotations.
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 primary purpose, and includes a critical caveat in the second sentence without redundancy. Every word earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (proxy resolution) and a key real-world pitfall (empty ABIs requiring TronScan). However, it does not describe the return format or structure of the ABI, which would be useful given no output schema, slightly reducing 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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter (contract_address) is already described with base58 format in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning or usage details, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'ABI of a smart contract on TRON', making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also adds distinct behavior (proxy resolution) and a practical caveat about TRON contracts lacking on-chain ABIs, distinguishing it from sibling tools like decode_abi_output or list_contract_methods.
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 a follow-up action (check TronScan if ABI is empty) but does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives such as decode_abi_output or list_contract_methods. There is no explicit guidance on selecting this tool over siblings, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.
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.