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 disclosure burden. It reveals sorting behavior ('sorted by creation time') and scope ('recent orders'), but omits time range definitions, pagination mechanics (though schema shows no cursor), authentication requirements, or return structure details.

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?

Extremely efficient at 16 words across two sentences. Front-loaded with action verb, zero redundancy, and second sentence delivers behavioral value (sorting) without waste.

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 simple 2-parameter read operation with complete schema documentation. Absence of output schema is partially mitigated by 'Returns recent orders', though specific return fields remain unspecified. Reasonably complete given low complexity.

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 score of 3. Description mentions 'optional status filter' which aligns with the non-required status parameter, but adds no semantic depth regarding the enum values or limit behavior beyond schema documentation.

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?

Clear verb-resource combination ('Get your order history') with specific scope indicated by 'history'. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling 'get_order_status', which likely retrieves status for specific orders rather than listing historical orders.

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 basic functionality description but offers no guidance on when to use this versus 'get_order_status' or other order-related tools. No mention of prerequisites, permissions, or alternative approaches for order retrieval.

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