TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses the post-broadcast verification behavior ('verifies that the platform permissions were correctly applied') and authentication requirement ('Requires authentication'). However, it omits other critical behavioral traits like transaction fees/gas costs, irreversibility, or error handling patterns for blockchain operations.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action, followed by post-conditions, workflow prerequisites, and auth requirements. 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?

Given the 100% schema coverage and absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the workflow and verification behavior. It mentions the verification outcome which compensates partially for missing return value documentation, though explicit return value description would strengthen it further.

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 coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by specifying that the signedTransaction must be an 'AccountPermissionUpdate' type (where the schema only references a generic 'signed transaction object'), and links the poolAddress to 'platform permissions' context.

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 specific verbs ('Broadcast') and resources ('AccountPermissionUpdate transaction', 'TRON blockchain') to clearly define the tool's function. It distinguishes itself from the generic 'broadcast_transaction' sibling by specifying the exact transaction type (AccountPermissionUpdate).

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 workflow guidance ('Use this after signing the transaction from build_permission_transaction') establishing the prerequisite tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use the sibling 'broadcast_transaction' instead, though the specific transaction type implies the distinction.

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