get_tron_staking

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description reinforces read-only nature and adds behavioral details: the resource meter vs frozen TRX distinction, the shape of votes[], and that it avoids side effects. No contradictions with annotations.

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 detailed and structured with parentheses and code references, but every sentence serves a purpose. It could be slightly trimmed, but the front-loaded enumeration of returned fields is effective. No wasted 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies all return components (rewards, frozen TRX, unfreeze timestamps, resource meter, votes) and their semantics. It also explains the relationship to other tools (prepare_tron_claim_rewards, prepare_tron_vote, list_tron_witnesses) and a known issue (#271). Complete guidance for a read-only query.

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 single parameter 'address' is fully described in the input schema (pattern, example, purpose). The description uses the address in context but does not add new semantic constraints beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; no extra value added.

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 explicitly states 'Read TRON staking state' and enumerates all returned data components (rewards, frozen TRX, pending unfreezes, resource meter, votes). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_tron_claim_rewards and prepare_tron_vote by positioning itself as the read-only precursor.

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?

The description explains when to use this tool: to obtain current staking state before claiming rewards (prepare_tron_claim_rewards) or rebalancing votes (prepare_tron_vote). It explicitly contrasts with list_tron_witnesses, noting that votes[] here avoids a chained call. Provides both positive and negative usage guidance.

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