Get a human-readable summary of a smart contract's methods with signatures, inputs, outputs, and mutability. Auto-resolves proxy contracts.
| 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?
The description implies a read-only operation ('Get a human-readable summary'), but the annotations assert destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, which directly contradicts the description. No additional behavioral details are provided, making the tool's actual behavior 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 concise and well-structured: two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded and the proxy behavior adding useful context. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.
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 output content and highlights proxy auto-resolution, but it lacks an explicit mention of the return format or error cases, especially given no output schema exists. The annotation contradiction further undermines the completeness of the behavioral context.
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 only parameter, contract_address, already has a clear schema description ('Smart contract address (base58, starts with T)'). The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter itself, so the baseline score of 3 applies given 100% schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('smart contract's methods'), and elaborates on what the summary includes: signatures, inputs, outputs, and mutability. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_contract_abi and gets the core purpose across in one sentence.
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 mention of 'Auto-resolves proxy contracts' provides a hint about when this tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of alternatives. It does not name any sibling tools or state exclusions, leaving usage mostly 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.