TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses authentication needs ('Requires API key'), data provenance ('fetched directly from TRON blockchain'), and freshness ('live'). Missing rate limits, pagination, or error behaviors (e.g., invalid address), but covers the critical safety and source context.

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 highly information-dense sentences with zero redundancy. Front-loaded with specific data payload values. Structure separates data semantics (sentence 1) from operational metadata (sentence 2). Every clause earns its place.

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?

Compensates effectively for the lack of output schema by enumerating all returned data fields (TRX balance, frozen resources, etc.). The single parameter is fully described in the schema. Missing explicit error handling documentation, but adequate for a read-only status fetch with simple input.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single optional parameter. The description adds contextual framing ('your pool') but does not supplement the schema's technical details (maxLength, default behavior). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already fully documents the parameter.

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?

Specific verb 'Get' plus exact resource 'live blockchain state' and detailed enumeration of data points (TRX balance, frozen resources, voting status, claimable rewards, delegated resources). The phrase 'live' and 'directly from TRON blockchain' distinguishes it from siblings like get_pool_stats (likely cached) and get_balance (generic).

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 contextual positioning through 'live blockchain state' and 'directly from TRON blockchain', implying real-time use cases vs cached alternatives. 'Requires API key' states a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives (e.g., 'use get_pool_stats for historical data') or failure conditions.

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