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 full disclosure burden and appropriately notes the API key requirement (auth context). However, it omits other behavioral details such as rate limits, read-only nature, or return format that would be expected given the absence of output schema and annotations.

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; the first front-loads the verb and resource while using a colon-separated list to enumerate specific statistics types, and the second clearly states the auth requirement.

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?

Reasonably complete for a zero-parameter tool, listing the specific statistical categories returned to compensate for missing output schema. However, it fails to clarify the relationship with similar sibling 'get_pool_delegations' or describe the response structure/format.

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 contains zero parameters, triggering the baseline score per rubric. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter documentation where none exist, though it implicitly references authentication that belongs in connection configuration rather than input parameters.

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 action 'Get' and resource 'statistics for your energy/bandwidth pools', listing concrete metrics (delegations, revenue, utilization, APY). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'get_pool_delegations' despite overlapping terminology.

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?

Indicates authentication requirement ('Requires API key') which serves as a prerequisite constraint. Lacks explicit guidance on when to select this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pool_delegations' or what prerequisites beyond API access might exist.

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