TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It only conveys authorization requirements ('No auth required'), but omits read-only safety confirmation, rate limits, data granularity, or how far back the history extends.

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?

Extremely terse at two fragments; while lacking fluff, the brevity compromises clarity. 'Price snapshots' is vague and wastes the opportunity to specify the resource domain (ENERGY/BANDWIDTH) upfront.

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?

Adequate for a simple 3-parameter read tool, but lacks expected context for a history-focused endpoint: no mention of data format, pagination, or the specific resource types being priced, leaving functional gaps despite the minimal surface area.

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 ('Filter by resource type', etc.), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter syntax details, constraints, or examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 it retrieves historical price data, but fails to specify that this applies to ENERGY/BANDWIDTH resources (per schema enum), leaving ambiguity amid sibling tools like get_trx_price and get_token_price. The temporal aspect ('Historical') provides some differentiation.

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?

Mentions 'No auth required' which establishes a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over get_prices or get_token_price, nor when the historical view is appropriate versus current pricing.

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