TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and discloses key behavioral traits: filters to 'active' delegations only (not historical), specifies resource types returned (energy/bandwidth), and explains expiration metadata. Missing only explicit read-only declaration and pagination/limits 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. First sentence establishes action and scope; second sentence describes output content (necessary since no output schema exists). Appropriately front-loaded and sized.

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?

Simple tool (1 optional param) with no output schema. Description compensates by detailing return content (recipients, resource types, expiration times). Only minor gap is explicit safety confirmation (read-only hint) which annotations would typically provide.

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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema description ('Filter by specific pool address...'). The main description adds no parameter-specific semantics, which is acceptable when schema coverage is complete; baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb ('Get') + resource ('active delegations') + scope ('from your pools'). Distinguishes from siblings like get_pool_stats (aggregate statistics) and check_pool_permissions (access control) by focusing on delegation records and their expiration.

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 implied usage context by specifying 'active' delegations and expiration dates, suggesting temporal relevance. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus get_pool_stats or check_pool_permissions (e.g., no 'use this when you need to check individual recipient addresses' guidance).

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