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 communicates the authentication requirement (none needed) and implies a read-only operation through 'look up,' but omits details about return format, error handling for invalid IDs, or rate limiting.

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 concise with two information-dense sentences. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a critical behavioral note. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

Appropriate for a simple, single-parameter lookup tool with full schema coverage. While it lacks an output schema or return value description (which would be ideal), the 'No auth required' note adds necessary context for blockchain operations, making it sufficiently complete for agent selection.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage (tx_id described as 'Transaction ID (hash)'), the baseline score is 3. The description references 'by ID' which aligns with the schema but adds no additional semantic context about the parameter format or constraints 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?

Clearly states the action (look up), resource (transaction), and scope (by ID on TRON). The 'by ID' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transaction_history and search_transaction_history, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 one usage constraint ('No auth required'), which is valuable for blockchain tooling. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this specific tool versus get_transaction_history or search_transaction_history, leaving the agent to infer based on the 'by ID' phrasing.

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