TronSave MCP Server

Get Signature Message

tronsave_get_sign_message

Read-onlyIdempotent

Issue a wallet-signable timestamp message helper for signature login. Returns { message, timestamp }: sign message exactly client-side, then submit <signature>_<timestamp> to tronsave_login (signature mode). Optional helper only — clients may also sign their own timestamp payload directly as long as it matches the signature_timestamp format expected by tronsave_login.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	Yes	Hex-encoded nonce message to sign client-side with the user's TRON wallet. The signature must be produced over THIS exact message (case-sensitive).
`timestamp`	Yes	Unix epoch seconds corresponding to `message`. Pair it with the wallet signature in `<signature>_<timestamp>` form when calling `tronsave_login` (signature mode). This endpoint is a convenience helper; clients may provide their own timestamp payload as well.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. Description adds context: exactly how the message should be signed client-side and the expected submission format. No contradictions, but some behavioral details (e.g., side effects) are implied by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two clear, well-structured sentences. Front-loaded with main purpose, then details. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no parameters and an output schema (mentioned but not shown), the description fully explains the tool's purpose, usage, and return format. Complete for its complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

No parameters in schema (100% schema coverage). Baseline is 4. Description adds value by explaining output structure and usage context, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it issues a wallet-signable timestamp message helper for signature login. Specifies return format ({ message, timestamp }) and distinguishes itself from sibling `tronsave_login` by explaining the flow.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use it ('helper for signature login') and notes that clients may bypass it by signing their own timestamp payload, providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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

All TronSave MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with some overlap between signature-based and internal API-based variants (e.g., create_order vs internal_order_create). Descriptions are thorough and help disambiguate. The minor overlap is justified by different authentication methods.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent 'tronsave_verb_noun' pattern with clear segmentation (e.g., get/list for retrieval, create/update/cancel for mutations). Internal tools use a consistent 'internal_' prefix. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

29 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a DeFi platform covering multiple resource types, order management, auto-settings, internal accounts, extensions, and authentication. A few tools could be merged (e.g., estimate variants) but overall scope justifies the count.

Completeness3/5

Major operations (CRUD for orders, auto-sell settings, internal account) are covered. Notable gaps include missing create/update tools for auto-buy rules (only delete exists) and limited history for signature-based orders (only internal order history available).

Resources

Need Help?