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 model (no auth required) but omits other behavioral traits like rate limits, return format, error handling for invalid addresses, or pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste: the first establishes purpose and scope, the second provides the authentication note. It is appropriately front-loaded and compact.

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 simple 3-parameter query tool without output schema, the description covers the essentials (purpose, auth). However, given the critical sibling naming collision with 'get_transaction_history', the description is incomplete without clarifying the distinction between these tools.

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 has 100% description coverage (address, type, limit all documented), establishing a baseline score of 3. The description mentions 'TRON address' aligning with the required parameter but does not add semantic context beyond what the schema already provides for the type filter or limit.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves 'on-chain transaction history for a TRON address' with a specific verb and resource. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_transaction_history', leaving ambiguity about when to choose this variant over the alternative.

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 notes 'No auth required,' providing a usage constraint. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the similar 'get_transaction_history' sibling, or any prerequisites beyond authentication.

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