TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

Discloses automatic routing logic ('Routed to cheapest provider') and authentication requirement. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it omits crucial purchasing behavior: payment method, failure modes beyond price limits, atomicity, and return values.

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?

Extremely terse at three short sentences. No redundancy, but arguably underspecified given the complexity of blockchain resource procurement—front-loaded action is good, but length is insufficient for the domain.

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?

Financial transaction tool with no annotations and no output schema requires extensive behavioral documentation. Missing: return structure, error handling, payment flow, and side effects on the target_address balance.

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%, so parameters are fully documented in struct fields. Description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond implying the resource types through the first sentence, warranting baseline score.

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?

Clear verb ('Buy') identifies the transaction type and resources ('energy or bandwidth') with platform context ('Merx'). However, it fails to distinguish from sibling order tools like 'create_paid_order' and 'create_standing_order'.

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?

Only mentions 'Auth required' as a prerequisite. Provides no guidance on when to use this generic order creation versus siblings (create_paid_order, create_standing_order) or other resource acquisition methods.

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