GoTRON MCP Server

transfer_trc20

Destructive

Create an unsigned TRC20 token transfer transaction. Returns transaction hex for signing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	Yes	Recipient address (base58, starts with T)
`from`	Yes	Sender address (base58, starts with T)
`amount`	Yes	Amount in token units (human-readable, e.g., '100.5')
`fee_limit`	No	Fee limit in TRX, range 0-15000 (default: 100)
`permission_id`	No	Permission ID for multi-sig transactions
`contract_address`	Yes	TRC20 contract address (base58, starts with T)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed5 schema fields changedMar 22, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / contract_address / description

Previous value: -"TRC20 contract address"New value: +"TRC20 contract address (base58, starts with T)"

changedInput schema / properties / fee_limit / description

Previous value: -"Fee limit in TRX (default: 100)"New value: +"Fee limit in TRX, range 0-15000 (default: 100)"

changedInput schema / properties / from / description

Previous value: -"Sender address"New value: +"Sender address (base58, starts with T)"

addedInput schema / properties / permission_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Permission ID for multi-sig transactions",
+  "type": "number"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / to / description

Previous value: -"Recipient address"New value: +"Recipient address (base58, starts with T)"

First observedMar 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it explicitly states the transaction is unsigned and that the tool returns a hex for signing, implying that no state change occurs until external signing and broadcasting. This is valuable nuance given destructiveHint=true, as it clarifies that the tool itself does not execute the transfer. However, it does not elaborate on the signing/broadcasting process or any required permissions.

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 exceptionally concise, consisting of two short sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and output. No filler or redundant information is present, making it easy for an agent to process quickly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool has six parameters with a fully described schema and annotations, the description adequately explains the core function and output. It is missing guidance on the subsequent signing/broadcast step and how the optional parameters (fee_limit, permission_id) affect the transaction, but these are documented in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for its intended use, though a brief note on the resulting hex's purpose would enhance clarity.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter clearly explained (e.g., base58 addresses, human-readable amount, fee limit range). The description does not need to add parameter-specific details, and it does not. It provides a general overview of the transaction type, which aligns with the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as creating an unsigned TRC20 token transfer transaction, using the specific verb 'Create' and the resource 'unsigned TRC20 token transfer transaction'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transfer_trx (native TRX) and trigger_contract (generic contract calls) by specifying the exact token standard and output. The additional detail about returning a transaction hex for signing removes ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies that this tool is used for TRC20 token transfers and that the returned hex is for signing, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., transfer_trx for native TRX) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or complementary tools for signing/broadcasting, so the usage context is only partially conveyed.

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

All GoTRON 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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Resources

Need Help?