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 behavioral burden. It compensates for missing output schema by listing return fields (status, amounts, transaction hashes, timestamps) and mentions authentication requirement. However, it doesn't explicitly declare the read-only/safe nature of the operation or describe pagination 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 well-structured sentences totaling ~30 words. Information is front-loaded: purpose first, output fields second, auth requirement third. No redundant or wasted language; each sentence contributes distinct information not replicated in structured fields.

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?

Reasonably complete for a query tool: describes purpose, return data structure (compensating for no output schema), and auth needs (compensating for no annotations). However, omits important behavioral context like the default poolAddress behavior (falls back to first registered pool) and lacks safety assertions expected for unannotated 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, establishing baseline 3. The description mentions 'stake, vote, claim' which maps to the actionType enum values, and 'your pool' contextualizes poolAddress, adding minor semantic value beyond the schema but not explaining parameter interactions (e.g., that poolAddress defaults to first registered pool).

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 'View' with resource 'execution history of automatic actions (stake, vote, claim)' and scope 'for your pool'. Enumerating the specific action types (stake, vote, claim) helps distinguish from sibling tools like get_auto_selling_config and trigger_vote, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 prerequisite context with 'Requires API key', indicating authentication needs. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance (e.g., 'Use this to audit past automatic operations') or when-not-to-use relative to siblings like get_auto_selling_config.

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