Query how many tokens a spender is approved to transfer on behalf of the owner. Flags unlimited approvals as high risk.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Token owner address (base58) | |
| spender | Yes | Approved spender address (base58) | |
| contract_address | Yes | TRC20 token contract address |
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 calls the operation 'Query' (read-only), but annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. This is a direct contradiction; the description claims a safe read while annotations warn of destructive behavior. Per rules, any contradiction forces a score of 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 cover the primary query behavior and the high-risk flag without redundancy or unnecessary details. Efficient 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?
The description covers the core function and the unlimited approval flag, but with no output schema it fails to specify the return format (e.g., exact number, units). The contradiction between the read-only description and destructive annotations further undermines completeness, making it minimally adequate.
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 fully describes all three required parameters (owner, spender, contract_address) with descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 uses the specific verb 'Query' and clearly identifies the resource being read: 'how many tokens a spender is approved to transfer on behalf of the owner.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_trc20_balance (balance) and transfer_trc20 (transfer) by focusing on allowance/approval amounts.
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 usage when checking spending allowances but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as revoke_approval or transfer_trc20. No exclusions or conditional guidance are provided.
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.