Build unsigned transaction to revoke a TRC20 token approval (sets allowance to 0)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| owner | Yes | Token owner address (base58) — the account revoking the approval | |
| spender | Yes | Spender address to revoke | |
| fee_limit | No | Fee limit in TRX (default 15, max 15000) | |
| permission_id | No | Permission ID for multi-sig transactions | |
| contract_address | Yes | TRC20 token contract address |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructive and non-read-only behavior. The description adds the crucial detail that the tool builds an unsigned transaction, implying it does not execute the change itself, and clarifies the allowance is set to zero. This goes beyond what annotations provide without contradicting them.
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 a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, and it avoids redundancy with the schema or annotations.
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?
Given the presence of a rich schema and annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's function and effect. It does not detail return values, but the phrase 'Build unsigned transaction' implies the output. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with each parameter already well-documented (e.g., owner, spender, fee_limit). The description does not add additional parameter-specific meaning, but the schema fully carries the burden, so the baseline 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 function: building an unsigned transaction to revoke a TRC20 token approval. It specifies the effect (sets allowance to 0) and uses a specific verb ('build') with a distinct resource, differentiating it from sibling tools like transfer_trc20 or get_trc20_allowance.
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 (revoking token approvals) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or mention any prerequisites. It lacks clear when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, though the context of 'building an unsigned transaction' is implicitly conveyed.
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.