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 succeeds: it reveals the automated selection algorithm (highest APY), permission requirements (VoteWitness), reward accumulation mechanics, and auto-claim integration. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating that this creates a blockchain transaction or its irreversibility.

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?

Five sentences efficiently convey purpose, algorithm, permissions, reward mechanics, and authentication. Every sentence delivers distinct operational value. Slightly front-heavy on benefits but prerequisites are clearly delineated. Could combine 'Requires API key' with permission sentence but overall minimal 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?

Given the single optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the voting mechanism, automatic selection logic, reward lifecycle, and authorization requirements. It explains what the tool accomplishes beyond parameter transmission, providing sufficient context for an agent to understand the business logic and side effects.

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% with the poolAddress parameter fully documented in the schema ('Pool address to vote from...'). The main description mentions 'your first registered pool' which conceptually relates to the parameter but doesn't add syntax guidance or usage scenarios beyond the schema definition. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination ('Vote for the best Super Representative') and clarifies the selection mechanism ('platform automatically selects the SR with the best return'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like withdraw_earnings, execute_swap, or manual pool operations by specifying the automated APY-optimization behavior.

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?

States clear prerequisites ('Requires VoteWitness permission granted to the platform', 'Requires API key') and explains the value proposition ('to earn voting rewards'). While it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools, the mention of auto-selection and reward accumulation provides clear context for when to invoke this versus manual delegation or trading tools.

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