Protocol Parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotence are covered. 'Public, read-only' largely restates that rather than adding new behavioral context such as rate limits, freshness/staleness of block data, or caching. The field enumeration adds value but it describes output content more than behavior.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the resource and its contents, the second states purpose and access level. No filler, no repetition beyond the useful access note.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return shapes, and it doesn't try to. Zero params, rich annotations, and a clear statement of contents and intended use make this complete for a read-only aggregate endpoint.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a no-arg tool applies. The description correctly makes no false claims about inputs.

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 verb (Read) and resource (TronSave and TRON protocol parameters) and enumerates exactly what comes back: latest block, minimum buy amounts, burn rates, deposit address, max lock period, USDT transfer energy cost. An agent knows precisely what this returns. It stops short of naming how it differs from close siblings like get_min_price, get_price_table or get_market_overview, which overlap in subject matter.

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?

'Use to size purchases (minimums) and to compare renting with burning TRX' gives concrete decision contexts rather than a generic 'use when needed'. It lacks explicit exclusions, though — nothing tells the agent when to prefer get_market_overview or get_min_price instead of this aggregate.

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