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 burden. While 'Update' implies mutation, description lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is partial (PATCH) or full replacement (PUT), what happens to unspecified parameters (8 of 9 are optional), side effects, idempotency, or success indicators. 'Toggle' implies boolean switching but doesn't clarify state machine behavior.

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?

Three efficient sentences with zero waste. Front-loaded with primary purpose ('Update auto-selling configuration...'). Each sentence earns its place: purpose statement, capability enumeration, prerequisite instruction. No redundant wording or unnecessary verbosity.

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 9-parameter configuration tool but contains gaps. Covers main functional areas (selling toggles, reserves, duration) and prerequisite workflow. Missing: partial vs full update semantics, output/confirmation details (no output schema exists), and behavioral constraints (e.g., whether minDuration must be less than maxDuration). Acceptable but not comprehensive given mutation 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%, establishing baseline 3. Description adds valuable semantic context by specifying the data source for 'configId' ('from get_auto_selling_config'), which is prerequisite information not found in schema. Also groups parameters functionally ('Toggle energy/bandwidth selling, set reserves') aiding comprehension beyond individual field descriptions.

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 specific verb ('Update') + resource ('auto-selling configuration') + scope ('for a pool'). Lists specific capabilities (toggle selling, set reserves, duration constraints). Distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'get_auto_selling_config' for prerequisite configId, implying this is modification of existing config vs retrieval.

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 clear prerequisite guidance: 'Pass the configId from get_auto_selling_config,' establishing the workflow sequence. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative selection guidance, but the prerequisite context effectively guides usage without implying exclusions.

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