Unstake TRX (Stake 2.0). Returns unsigned transaction hex for signing. Note: unstaked TRX has a 14-day withdrawal period.
| 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 unstake (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 unstake"New value: +"Amount in TRX to unstake (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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), the description discloses that the tool returns an unsigned transaction hex for signing rather than directly unstaking, and notes the 14-day withdrawal period. These are meaningful behavioral insights not available elsewhere in the structured data.
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: three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence adds value: the action, the return format, and the timing consequence. No wasted words.
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 state-changing tool with annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers the core action, the return value (unsigned hex), and an important timing caveat. However, it lacks differentiation from withdraw_expire_unfreeze and undelegate_resource, which could confuse an agent in this tool-dense environment.
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%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain how the amount, resource, or other parameters affect the operation, 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 states 'Unstake TRX (Stake 2.0)' which is a specific verb+resource action. It explicitly distinguishes this from freeze_balance (staking) and withdraw_expire_unfreeze (withdrawing after the unfreeze period) by referencing Stake 2.0. The return type (unsigned transaction hex) further clarifies its purpose.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as withdraw_expire_unfreeze or undelegate_resource. The description implies the usage from the verb 'Unstake' but does not provide explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.
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.