TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully discloses key behaviors: comparison logic ('rental vs burn cost') and auth requirements. Missing return value format and rate limit information, but covers the critical domain-specific behavior (TRON's dual resource model).

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?

Three sentences, zero waste. Front-loaded with core purpose (estimation), followed by distinguishing behavioral detail (rental/burn comparison), ending with operational constraint (auth). Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Tool has 8 parameters with conditional requirements (custom operation needs contract_address/function_selector) and no output schema. Description omits conditional parameter logic and return structure. Adequate for basic usage but gaps remain for complex 'custom' operations.

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 has 100% description coverage (all 8 params documented). Description does not add parameter semantics beyond schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage. Baseline score 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?

Specific verb 'Estimate' plus clear resource 'energy and bandwidth cost for a TRON transaction'. Distinguishes from execution siblings (transfer_trx, transfer_trc20) by being estimation-focused, and differentiates from estimate_contract_call by targeting general transactions rather than specific contract calls.

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 explicit auth guidance ('No auth required'), which helps determine when it can be called safely. However, lacks explicit differentiation from similar estimation sibling estimate_contract_call or guidance on when to use 'custom' vs predefined operations.

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