get_energy_fee_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful traits: it is free, requires no network call ('offline'), returns approved changes only, and is a snapshot read on a specific date (2026-10-04) rather than live data. It stops short of stating limits or return structure, so not a 5.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the two most load-bearing facts (free, offline) before the data scope; no filler.

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 zero-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema read tool, the description covers provenance, freshness, coverage window, and returned fields. Only the exact response shape/pagination is unspecified, which is minor here.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly adds no phantom parameter guidance and instead scopes the data by time range and approval status.

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?

Names a specific resource (TRON energy price / getEnergyFee) and the exact operation (every approved change since 2018, with committee proposal and date), which separates it from the market/price siblings like get_price_history and get_prices.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'since 2018' and 'every approved change' framing tells the agent this is the historical/audit view of energy fees, but it never says when to pick it over get_chain_parameters or get_price_history, nor any preconditions.

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