broadcast_hex

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, indicating a network-side write operation. The description adds contextual detail about the payload (signed, protocol buffer-encoded) but does not disclose potential side effects like irreversibility, gas costs, or failure modes. With annotations covering the safety profile, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential action and payload format without wasted words. It is concise and directly readable.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the existence of annotations and a complete schema, the description is adequate but lacks detail on return values, error behavior, or the default network. With no output schema, the description could have mentioned expected response or side effects, but the core action is clearly covered.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (network, transaction) having descriptions. The tool description adds extra semantic context ('protocol buffer-encoded', 'signed') that goes beyond the schema's 'Signed transaction hex string', enriching the understanding of the primary parameter.

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 function: broadcasting a signed, protocol buffer-encoded transaction hex string to the TRON network. It uses a specific verb ('Broadcast') and resource ('transaction hex string'), and the 'protocol buffer-encoded' qualifier distinguishes it from potential siblings like broadcast_transaction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a prerequisite (a signed transaction) but does not reference sibling tools such as create_transaction, sign_message, or broadcast_transaction, nor does it explain when this specific encoding format is required.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.