registerStart agent registration by providing your TRON address. Returns a challenge string that you must sign with your TRON private key using tronWeb.trx.signMessageV2(). After signing, call verify_registration with the signature to receive your API key. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Your TRON wallet address (T-address format, 34 characters) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a challenge string, requires signing with the private key, and is the first step before verify_registration. It also states that no authentication is needed. This is good behavioral disclosure, though it doesn't cover edge cases like expired challenges or duplicate registrations.
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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence contributes: what it does, what it returns, and what to do next. No fluff or redundancy. It is concise and well-structured.
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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential flow: returns a challenge, how to sign it, and the next step (verify_registration). It doesn't mention error cases or formatting details, but those are covered by the schema and the guidance given. It is complete enough for an agent to 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?
The schema already provides 100% coverage for the address parameter with a clear description ('TRON wallet address, 34 characters'). The tool description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond reiterating that the address is used to start registration. Per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Start agent registration by providing your TRON address.' It uses a specific verb ('start') and resource ('agent registration'), and the flow described distinguishes it from sibling tools like verify_registration. The title 'Register Agent' reinforces the action.
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 provides clear context: it instructs the user to call verify_registration after signing the challenge, and notes 'No authentication required.' It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the step-by-step flow makes the intended usage obvious. This is clear guidance without being overly verbose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists: get_prices and get_market_overview both provide pricing info, and get_available_resources, get_pool_delegations, and get_onchain_status all relate to resource status. Descriptions clarify these distinctions adequately.
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_balance, register_pool, configure_auto_selling). Minor inconsistency: 'broadcast_signed_permission_tx' uses the abbreviation 'tx' while 'broadcast_transaction' uses the full word 'transaction'.
27 tools is excessive for a server with this scope, exceeding the 25-tool threshold. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., get_prices and get_market_overview, or the various resource-status getters). The high count makes the tool surface harder to navigate.
The server covers the core domain well: registration, balance management, pool registration and configuration, energy purchase, order tracking, swap, and voting. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tool for configuring auto actions (stake/claim) or cancelling orders, but these do not severely hinder core workflows.