Tronsave MCP Testnet

Login Session

tronsave_login

Authenticate with TronSave and create a server session. Returns { sessionId, walletAddress?, expiresAt } — pass sessionId as the mcp-session-id header on every subsequent MCP request. walletAddress is set only for signature-mode logins. Two modes: (1) wallet signature (preferred for platform tools) — call this tool with signature_timestamp formatted as <signature>_<timestamp>, where <signature> must be produced client-side by signing the timestamp message; you may optionally call tronsave_get_sign_message to obtain a helper message/timestamp pair; (2) API key (internal tools) — pass apiKey (raw key, no prefix). Side effect: creates a new session on the server. Wallet signing must happen client-side; never send private keys to the server.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`apiKey`	No	Raw API key for internal-tools login. Provide EXACTLY ONE of `apiKey` or `signature`.
`signature`	No	Signature token in `signature_timestamp` format (timestamp is the signed message). Provide EXACTLY ONE of `apiKey` or `signature`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`expiresAt`	Yes
`sessionId`	Yes	Session id to pass as mcp-session-id in subsequent calls.
`walletAddress`	No

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the side effect of creating a new server session, the return value structure, and client-side signing requirements. It explains the signature format and warns against sending private keys, providing comprehensive behavioral context.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is well-structured and informative, but it is slightly longer than necessary. However, all information is relevant and no sentences are wasted, earning a score of 4.

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 the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers return values, both authentication modes, side effects, and usage instructions. It leaves no gaps for an AI agent to misunderstand.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial meaning: it explains the exact format for 'signature' (<signature>_<timestamp>), that 'apiKey' is raw, and that exactly one must be provided. This goes well beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Authenticate with TronSave and create a server session.' It uses a specific verb ('Authenticate') and resource ('TronSave'), and is distinct from sibling tools which handle orders, accounts, etc.

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?

The description explicitly details two login modes (wallet signature for platform tools, API key for internal tools) and provides guidance on when to use each. It instructs the user to pass the returned sessionId as a header on subsequent requests, leaving no ambiguity about post-login procedure.

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

All Tronsave MCP Testnet 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

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple order creation tools (tronsave_create_order, tronsave_internal_order_create, tronsave_internal_create_extend_request) and multiple estimation tools (tronsave_estimate_buy_resource, tronsave_get_min_price, tronsave_internal_order_estimate). This would confuse an agent trying to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tools follow a tronsave_verb_noun pattern with snake_case, but verbs are inconsistent (e.g., list vs get, create vs register) and the internal_ prefix creates two distinct naming styles. Some tools like tronsave_internal_order_book and tronsave_list_order_books are confusingly similar.

Tool Count2/5

29 tools is excessive for a server focused on a single market. Many tools duplicate functionality for internal vs signature authentication, bloating the surface. A more streamlined set (e.g., 10-15) would be more appropriate.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers core operations like CRUD for orders, account info, and auto-settings. However, there are gaps: no explicit delete for auto-sell settings, and manual sell is the only sell option. Some internal tools appear redundant, but overall coverage is adequate.

Resources

Need Help?