TRON Custom

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that the tool returns source code formatted as a Markdown code block and that it does not write to disk. This gives an agent a clear expectation of side effects and output format, though it does not mention broader behaviors such as whether any deployment or network interaction occurs.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately following with the key output format and side-effect note. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a code-generation tool, the description covers the target platform, return value, and non-persistence, while the schema covers all inputs. It does not explicitly state that the contract is not deployed or that no blockchain transaction occurs, but the 'Does not write to disk' line implies a local generation-only operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3; the description itself adds no parameter-level semantics. The schema already documents all five parameters and their nested fields with useful descriptions, so the lack of parameter details in the description is acceptable.

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 states a specific action ('Make a custom smart contract') and resource ('TRON Virtual Machine'), and the word 'custom' distinguishes it from standard TRON templates like tron-trc20 or tron-trc721. It is not a tautology and clearly indicates what the tool produces, though it could more explicitly describe the nature of the customization.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than the many sibling tools. The description relies on the word 'custom' to imply that it is for non-standard contracts, but it never names alternatives like tron-trc20, tron-trc721, or other chain-specific custom tools. An agent must infer the appropriate context.

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