trongrid_api_call

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or impact on data. The phrase 'direct call' is not informative beyond the obvious.

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?

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it sacrifices informativeness for brevity. The structure is front-loaded but could easily include more useful context in a few more words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must provide complete context. It fails to explain what the response looks like, error conditions, or any other operational details. For a raw API call, critical info like base URL, authentication, and handling of responses is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (endpoint, method, data). The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'direct call'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema does the work.

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 clearly states it is a direct call to the TronGrid API endpoint, indicating it's a generic raw API tool. This distinguishes it from the many specific TronGrid tools in the sibling list. However, it could be more explicit about when to use this generic call vs the dedicated tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools like get_block or get_transaction. No context about prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for use is provided.

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