TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It successfully adds auth requirement ('Requires API key'), explains the business logic of each permission (e.g., 'to sell energy'), and clarifies this is a verification/confirmation step. Could improve by stating if this is a read-only blockchain call.

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 efficient sentences with zero waste: permission check definition, required permissions, optional permissions, and usage timing/auth. Information is front-loaded with the core action first.

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 no output schema exists, the description should ideally characterize the return value (status boolean/object), but it comprehensively covers the operational prerequisites and specific permission logic required for the pool domain. Context signals indicate simple structure (1 param, no nesting), so description adequately covers complexity.

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% (poolAddress fully described). Description mentions 'your pool address' which provides context, but doesn't add semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides regarding format or validation. Baseline 3 appropriate given schema completeness.

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?

Excellent specificity: 'Verify... active permissions' clearly states the action, 'pool address' identifies the resource, and it enumerates specific permission types (DelegateResource, UnDelegateResource, VoteWitness) distinguishing it from permission-granting siblings like build_permission_transaction.

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?

States explicit timing 'Run this after granting permissions to confirm...' which establishes the workflow sequence. However, it doesn't explicitly name the alternative tools (build_permission_transaction/broadcast_signed_permission_tx) to use when permissions are missing.

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