Create an unsigned TRX transfer transaction. Returns transaction hex for signing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | Recipient address (base58, starts with T) | |
| from | Yes | Sender address (base58, starts with T) | |
| memo | No | Optional memo to attach to the transaction | |
| amount | Yes | Amount in TRX (e.g., '100.5') | |
| 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 / from / descriptionPrevious value: -"Sender address"New value: +"Sender 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"
+}Input schema / properties / to / descriptionPrevious value: -"Recipient address"New value: +"Recipient address (base58, starts with T)"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
While annotations already indicate non-read-only and destructive hints, the description adds valuable context by clarifying the transaction is unsigned and meant for signing, meaning it does not broadcast immediately. This behavior is not fully captured by the annotations alone, so the description enhances transparency.
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 extremely concise: two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the core purpose and the second providing return information. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
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 that the schema fully documents parameters and annotations cover safety profile, the description completes the picture by specifying the return format (transaction hex for signing). No output schema exists, but the description adequately covers what the tool returns and what to do with it.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter-specific details. The baseline of 3 applies because the description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
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 specific verb 'Create' and resource 'unsigned TRX transfer transaction', distinguishing it from sibling tools like transfer_trc20 (which handles TRC20 tokens). It also states the return type (transaction hex), adding further specificity.
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 clearly establishes the tool's purpose for creating unsigned TRX transfers, which implies its usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives like transfer_trc20, so it falls short of full guidance.
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.