wrap_trx

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description confirms it is a write operation. It adds context about the 1:1 rate and reversibility via unwrap_trx, and mentions pre-checks. No contradiction with annotations.

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 three concise sentences, front-loading the core purpose, followed by relevant context and pre-conditions. No unnecessary words.

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 description covers purpose, usage, and pre-checks, but does not describe the output/return value (e.g., transaction hash). Given no output schema, this is a gap for an agent needing to confirm execution.

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 description adds value by explaining the amount is a human-readable decimal string and noting the default network. The 1:1 rate and contract interaction context further illuminate the amount parameter.

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 'Wrap native TRX into WTRX' at a 1:1 rate via the deposit() function. It specifies the action, resource, and mechanism, and distinguishes from the sibling unwrap_trx tool.

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 explains that WTRX is needed for DeFi protocols that cannot hold native TRX, giving example use cases. It mentions reversibility and a pre-check for sufficient balance, but does not explicitly list scenarios where this tool should not be used.

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