TRON Energy/Bandwidth MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, description carries full burden and successfully discloses critical behavioral traits: API key authentication requirement, return format (unsigned TX), and client-side signing requirement. Minor gap: no mention of rate limits, liquidity failure modes, or caching 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?

Three tight sentences: (1) core action and platform, (2) return value and signing instruction, (3) next-step workflow and auth requirement. Zero waste, front-loaded with primary purpose.

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?

Comprehensive for a quote tool: covers DEX context, full transaction lifecycle (quote→sign→execute), and auth. Missing explicit error scenarios (insolvency, invalid pairs), but adequately complete given 100% schema coverage and lack of output schema.

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 (token symbols/addresses, smallest units, basis points), establishing baseline 3. Tool description adds SunSwap DEX context, implicitly validating TRC-20/TRX tokens, but does not add individual parameter semantics beyond schema definitions.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with clear resources (price quote, unsigned transaction) and scope (SunSwap DEX). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'execute_swap' by stating this returns an unsigned TX for client-side signing, while execute_swap handles submission.

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?

Explicitly maps the workflow: use this tool for quoting, then sign client-side, then submit via execute_swap. Also states prerequisite 'Requires API key'. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the specific alternative/next step tool.

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