List pending transaction IDs and pool size from the mempool
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max transaction IDs to return (default: 10) | |
| offset | No | Skip first N transaction IDs (default: 0, for pagination) |
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 'List' which indicates a read-only operation, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction. The description does not add any behavioral context beyond the annotations, and the annotation conflict makes the tool's behavior unclear and potentially misleading.
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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains zero filler and is appropriately sized for a simple list operation. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
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 is relatively simple, but the description lacks important context. The contradictory annotations undermine trust, and the return format (e.g., how pool size and IDs are structured) is not described. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns, but it only mentions 'pool size' fleetingly. The description is incomplete for an agent to safely select and invoke this tool.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (limit and offset) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already states. The schema does the heavy lifting, so a 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('pending transaction IDs and pool size from the mempool'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_pending_by_address or is_transaction_pending. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does.
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 the tool should be used to fetch pending transactions from the mempool, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pending_by_address or is_transaction_pending. No exclusions or alternative comparisons are provided, so the context is implied rather than explicit.
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.