pair_ledger_tron

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: it reads the device address at m/44'/195'/<accountIndex>'/0/0, caches it for get_ledger_status, and is idempotent (calls for same index refresh in place). It also describes error behavior when the TRON app is not open or device locked, providing actionable error messages. Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, which aligns with the description.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose, REQUIREMENTS section, derivation path, and usage notes. It is slightly verbose (e.g., explaining derivation path in detail), but every sentence adds value. The information is front-loaded with the core action and requirements.

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 no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: preconditions (device plugged, unlocked, Tron app open), behavior (reads address, caches), usage patterns (multi-call for accounts), error handling (actionable errors), and relation to other tools (must be called before prepare/send). It is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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 already provides a detailed description of the accountIndex parameter (hardened BIP-44 index, default 0, multiple calls for different indices). The description adds context about the derivation path and caching behavior, which complements the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the additional context justifies a 4.

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 tool's purpose: pairing a directly-connected Ledger device for TRON signing via USB HID. It specifies the derivation path and caching behavior, and distinguishes this tool from siblings like pair_ledger_btc or pair_ledger_solana by focusing on the TRON app and USB HID interface.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool: before any prepare_tron_* tool or send_transaction with a TRON handle. It also specifies that it does not work with WalletConnect due to CAIP namespace limitations, and instructs calling multiple times with different accountIndex values to pair additional accounts. This provides clear when/why-not guidance.

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