TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

Absent annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully communicates the authentication requirement (none), but omits other behavioral traits: read-only/idempotent nature, error handling for invalid addresses, rate limits, or response format.

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 efficient sentences. The first sentence states the function; the second states the auth policy. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool without output schema, the description should ideally describe return value structure (object with three fields? individual values?). Currently omits this, leaving the agent blind to expected response format despite adequately covering inputs.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter ('TRON address (starts with T.)'), so the baseline applies. The description adds no incremental parameter guidance (examples, validation rules, or format constraints) beyond the schema definition.

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?

States specific action (Check) and resources (energy, bandwidth, TRX balance) for TRON addresses. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_trx_balance (which likely omits resource metrics) by explicitly naming energy/bandwidth, though lacks explicit comparative guidance.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus siblings like get_account_info, get_balance, or ensure_resources. The only contextual hint is 'No auth required' which is a constraint, not a usage scenario.

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