TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It successfully reveals the authentication requirement (MERX_API_KEY), but omits other behavioral traits such as what happens if the key is missing, whether the result is cached, or the specific structure of the returned address/memo data.

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 consists of two short, efficient sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the prerequisite is clearly stated in the second. Every word 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?

While the description identifies what is retrieved (address and memo) and the auth requirement, it lacks description of the return format (critical given no output schema exists) and does not explain the 'memo' concept for users unfamiliar with tagged deposits. For a financial operation tool, this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 contains zero parameters. Per the rubric guidelines for zero-parameter tools, this warrants a baseline score of 4, as there are no parameter semantics to clarify.

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 identifies the exact resource ('Merx deposit address and memo'), clearly indicating this is a retrieval operation. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool `deposit_trx`, which could confuse whether this tool performs the deposit or merely retrieves the address for future use.

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 only states a prerequisite ('Requires MERX_API_KEY') but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `deposit_trx` or `create_order`, nor does it explain the workflow context (e.g., 'use this before depositing funds').

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