TRON infrastructure for AI agents.

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions the 'MERX_API_KEY' requirement, but critically omits that this is a destructive, irreversible financial operation with potential for permanent loss if the address is incorrect, lacks fee disclosure, and does not mention confirmation times or async behavior.

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads the core action and entities, while the second states the critical auth requirement. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given this is a high-stakes financial mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essential what, where, and auth requirements. However, it exhibits clear gaps regarding operational risks, failure modes, and financial safety considerations that would be necessary for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.

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%, establishing a baseline of 3. The main description mentions both currency options ('TRX or USDT'), which helps clarify the intent despite the parameter being named amount_trx, but does not add syntax details, validation rules, or format examples beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific action ('Withdraw'), resources ('TRX or USDT'), and scope ('from your Merx account to an external TRON address'). This effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like deposit_trx (incoming) and transfer_trx (likely on-chain or internal transfers).

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 provides implicit context by specifying the direction (Merx account to external address), which helps identify when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over transfer_trc20/transfer_trx, prerequisites beyond the API key, or warnings about irreversible operations.

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