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 full disclosure burden. While it mentions 'delegation progress' as specific returned data, it fails to clarify other critical behaviors: what happens if the orderId doesn't exist (error vs null), whether this requires authentication, or if there are rate limits. 'Get' implies read-only safety, but this is not confirmed.

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?

The single sentence is appropriately sized with no redundant phrases. 'Including delegation progress' earns its place by specifying what 'detailed status' encompasses. However, it could be more front-loaded with usage context given the lack of output schema.

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?

For a low-complexity tool (1 parameter, flat schema), the description adequately hints at output contents ('detailed status', 'delegation progress') given the absence of an output schema. However, with no annotations to rely on, it should provide more behavioral context to be fully complete.

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% (orderId fully documented as UUID format), establishing the baseline score. The description implies single-entity lookup through 'specific order' but doesn't add syntax details, validation rules, or formatting guidance beyond what's in 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('order status') and clarifies scope with 'specific order'. It adds valuable context about returned data ('including delegation progress'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_orders' (plural), leaving the selection logic slightly ambiguous despite the implication.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_orders' for listing multiple orders. It omits prerequisites (needing a valid orderId first) and doesn't indicate when NOT to use it (e.g., if you only need summary data).

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