tron_sign

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so excellently. It discloses internal cryptographic components, two working modes, the return value, and a critical security warning about private key exposure in MCP clients and conversation history. This far exceeds minimal behavioral disclosure.

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 concise and well-structured, introducing the tool's purpose and then enumerating actions and security. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, including the security note, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite the absence of output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, internal process, input requirements, output, and security. However, the lack of explicit parameter names and the empty input schema mean an agent may not be able to construct a correct invocation, so completeness is not perfect.

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 is empty (0 params), so the description is the sole source of parameter information. It mentions required data (raw_data_hex, raw unsigned tx hex, private key) but does not provide explicit parameter names or types, leaving invocation ambiguous. It adds value over the schema but not complete parameter clarity.

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 'Sign a Tron transaction' with specific implementation details (Node crypto, sha256, secp256k1) and lists two distinct action modes. This distinguishes it from sibling sign tools for other chains and gives a precise verb+resource scope.

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?

It provides clear context (Tron signing) and outlines two actions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or how to choose between sign-from-details and sign-unsigned-hex. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, but the chain-specific name is helpful.

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