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. It partially compensates by listing what data is returned ('resources', 'duration constraints', 'reserves'), but omits safety traits (read-only nature), error conditions, or side effects that annotations would typically cover.

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 zero waste. Front-loaded with action verb and no filler text. Every clause earns its place by specifying scope or return value details.

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 parameterless getter despite missing output schema. The description enumerates the configuration aspects returned (resources, constraints, reserves), providing sufficient context for invocation without requiring parameter guidance.

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?

Zero parameters present; per rubric baseline is 4. Schema coverage is trivially 100% with no properties to describe.

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 ('Get') and resource ('auto-selling configuration') with scope ('for your pools'). Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'configure_auto_selling' by being a getter versus setter, though explicit contrast would strengthen this.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives like 'configure_auto_selling' or what prerequisites exist (e.g., needing registered pools). Agent must infer usage from the verb 'Get' alone.

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