Tronsave MCP Testnet

Update Order

tronsave_update_order

Update an open order by orderId with partial fields (receiver, newPrice). Returns the updated order payload. Side effect: overwrites live order parameters; not idempotent — each call with a different newPrice produces a new state. Backend requires a signature session and mcp-session-id; the MCP gate is public to allow anonymous read-fallthrough, but the GraphQL helper rejects api-key-only sessions. Prefer this over cancel+recreate when only price/receiver should change. Verify state with tronsave_get_order first; fails for already-fulfilled, already-cancelled, or non-editable orders.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orderId`	Yes	Target order id (`MObjectId`) to update. Order must still be open and editable.
`newPrice`	No	Optional replacement unit price in SUN.
`receiver`	No	Optional replacement receiver TRON address.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	GraphQL mutation status code (HTTP-like; `0`/`200` indicates success). Always pair with `success` for routing.
`message`	Yes	Human-readable status text. Populated even on success; localized error messages may appear here on failure.
`success`	Yes	Whether the mutation succeeded at the backend level. Always check this before reading `data`.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. Description adds side effect detail ('overwrites live order parameters; not idempotent — each call with a different newPrice produces a new state'), enhancing beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is a single paragraph with front-loaded core purpose, followed by side effects, auth context, usage guidance, and precautions. Every sentence is informative and non-redundant.

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 (mutation with side effects, auth needs, failure conditions), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, side effects, idempotency, authentication, preconditions, failure scenarios, and sibling differentiation. Output schema exists so return value is not needed.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all three parameters. Description adds unit context (SUN for newPrice, TRON address for receiver) and conditions (order must be open/editable). While schema already covers basics, the additional context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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 'Update an open order by orderId with partial fields (receiver, newPrice). Returns the updated order payload.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools by recommending this over cancel+recreate when only price/receiver change.

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 recommends this over cancel+recreate, instructs to verify state with tronsave_get_order first, and notes failure conditions (fulfilled, cancelled, non-editable). Also mentions backend authentication requirements (signature session, mcp-session-id) and gate type.

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?