Validate a TRON address and convert supported inputs to TRON base58/hex. Accepts base58 (T...), TRON hex (41...), or Ethereum/EVM format (0x...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | TRON address (base58 T..., hex 41..., or Ethereum 0x...) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / address / descriptionPrevious value: -"TRON address (base58 starting with T, or hex starting with 41)"New value: +"TRON address (base58 T..., hex 41..., or Ethereum 0x...)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description describes the tool as validating and converting addresses, which is inherently a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint: true, implying potential harmful side effects. This creates a direct contradiction between the description and the metadata, as the description gives no indication of destructive behavior and the operation described cannot plausibly be destructive.
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, concise sentence that immediately states the action and resource, followed by the accepted input formats. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and highly efficient.
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 has one parameter and no output schema, so the description should explain both input and expected output behavior. It clearly covers input formats, but does not specify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean validity indication, the converted base58 address, or an error). This gap leaves the agent uncertain about the return value, making the description only partially complete.
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 already provides 100% coverage of the parameter, describing the address field with the same formats (base58 T..., hex 41..., or Ethereum 0x...). The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema states, 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: validating a TRON address and converting supported inputs to base58/hex. It uses specific verbs ('validate', 'convert') and the resource (TRON address), and lists accepted input formats. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like analyze_account or get_account, which focus on other operations.
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 when to use the tool: when you need to validate or convert a TRON address in any of the supported formats. It provides clear context about the accepted input types, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. Since it is a standalone utility with no closely related siblings, the guidance is sufficient.
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.