TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It explains the return values (energy needed and cost in TRX) but fails to confirm this is a read-only estimation operation with no side effects, state changes, or rate limits.

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?

Two efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first states purpose, the second states inputs and outputs. Every word earns its place in this compact definition.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters with enums), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and expected return values (energy amount and TRX cost) despite lacking an output schema. It appropriately delegates parameter details to the schema.

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 maps 'transaction count and type' to the business logic of calculating energy needs, adding conceptual context. However, it omits mention of the durationMinutes parameter entirely, leaving that solely to the schema.

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 calculates costs for purchasing TRON Energy or Bandwidth, using specific verbs and resources. However, it stops short of explicitly distinguishing this estimation tool from the sibling 'buy_energy' execution tool, which would prevent potential confusion.

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 implies a pre-purchase planning workflow by stating what inputs to 'provide' to 'get' cost estimates, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus 'buy_energy' or 'get_prices' (siblings that likely execute or retrieve current market data).

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