tron_address

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cost ($0.002 USDC per call), p99 latency (2000ms), and the exact warning signals returned. It doesn't state rate limits, auth/quota requirements, or explicitly that it is a read-only operation, leaving minor gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then usage guidance, then cost/latency. Dense but nearly every clause earns its place. Slightly list-heavy, preventing a 5.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values, interpretation of those values, cost, and latency. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Tron address starting with T'), so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format or validation detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 a specific resource (Tron address) and enumerates exactly what it reports: TRX balance, staked TRX, USDT/USDC TRC-20 balances, USD value, creation/activity dates, bandwidth/energy, and scam warning signals. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like tron_watch or wallet_portfolio without opening a schema.

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 states when to use it: 'before sending USDT on Tron or to check a counterparty,' and explains the interpretation signal (fresh/never-activated addresses are typical for scams). It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., tron_watch) to route between them, so it falls short of a 5.

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