Stake TRX for energy or bandwidth (Stake 2.0). Returns unsigned transaction hex for signing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | Yes | Account address (base58, starts with T) | |
| memo | No | Optional memo to attach to the transaction | |
| amount | Yes | Amount in TRX to stake (e.g., '100.5') | |
| resource | Yes | Resource type | |
| permission_id | No | Permission ID for multi-sig transactions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / amount / descriptionPrevious value: -"Amount in TRX to stake"New value: +"Amount in TRX to stake (e.g., '100.5')"Input schema / properties / from / descriptionPrevious value: -"Account address"New value: +"Account address (base58, starts with T)"Input schema / properties / memoAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Optional memo to attach to the transaction",
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / permission_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Permission ID for multi-sig transactions",
+ "type": "number"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds key behavior: 'Returns unsigned transaction hex for signing.' This tells the agent that the tool does not execute the stake directly but generates a transaction to be signed and broadcast, adding valuable context beyond the structured annotations.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main verb 'Stake', and every word earns its place. The second sentence about the return value is essential and not redundant.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is adequate: it states the purpose, the return value, and the resource type. Missing details like locking duration or prerequisites are not critical for the agent's initial evaluation, and the annotations cover the safety profile. Slightly more detail could be added, but the essentials are covered.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; for example, the 'resource' enum is fully documented in the schema. The description's mention of energy/bandwidth aligns with the parameter but offers no new details.
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 'Stake TRX for energy or bandwidth (Stake 2.0)' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like unfreeze_balance and transfer_trx by naming the staking action and the two resource types, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 implies the use case (staking to obtain energy or bandwidth) and names the resource types, but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like delegate_resource or unfreeze_balance. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is clear but not fully explicit.
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.
Several tool groups have overlapping responsibilities (e.g., get_energy_prices/get_bandwidth_prices/get_chain_parameters, get_pending_transactions/get_pending_by_address/is_transaction_pending, and analyze_account vs get_account plus its resource/permission variants). These create boundary confusion despite clear descriptions, and with 43 tools an agent will likely select the wrong one occasionally.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_account, transfer_trx, delegate_resource, unfreeze_balance). Even the few multi-word verbs (estimate_energy, trigger_constant_contract) remain predictable. No camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.
With 43 tools, the server is heavy. While the TRON domain is broad, the tool surface is bloated with many near-synonyms and split functionalities that could be consolidated. The rubric flags 25+ tools as too many; 43 clearly exceeds that.
The server covers a wide range of read and transaction-building operations, including staking, governance, contracts, and TRC20. However, it lacks critical lifecycle steps: there is no sign or broadcast tool, and no ability to deploy contracts or create accounts. This is a significant gap for a tool that returns unsigned transactions.