freeze_balance_v2

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description adds little behavioral context. It does not disclose that freezing locks funds, that unfreezing is required to recover TRX, or any other side effects. The 'Stake 2.0' hint is the only extra insight.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the action and purpose.

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 staking operation with significant implications (locked funds, later unfreeze), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the staking lifecycle or consequences, leaving an agent potentially under-informed. Sibling tools like unfreeze_balance_v2 highlight the missing context.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter (amount, network, resource) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score 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 the specific action ('Freeze TRX') and outcome ('get resources'), and the parenthetical 'Stake 2.0' adds relevant context. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like transfer_trx, unfreeze_balance_v2, and delegate_resource.

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 needing bandwidth or energy, but it does not explicitly discuss when to use this tool versus alternatives like delegate_resource or when not to use it. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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