create_transaction

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false. The description adds valuable context: the recipient is auto-activated if it doesn't exist, and the return value is an unsigned object that must be signed before broadcasting. This goes beyond the annotation metadata and offers insight into the expected workflow.

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 concise sentences that front-load the primary action and then add the two most important caveats (auto-activation and signing requirement). There is no filler or redundant content.

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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core purpose, the required follow-up action (sign and broadcast), and a key behavioral side-effect. With no output schema, noting that it returns an unsigned transaction object is sufficient, though it could explicitly mention broadcast_transaction as a next step.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions (amount in SUN, Base58 addresses, network default). The description does not add further parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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 a specific action: 'Create an unsigned TRX transfer transaction.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like transfer_trx by emphasizing the unsigned nature and the need to sign before broadcasting, indicating it is a preparation step, not a direct transfer.

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 usage: when you need an unsigned transaction for later signing, and it mentions the auto-activation behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., transfer_trx or broadcast_transaction) or state when not to use this tool, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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