prepare_tron_native_send

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

The description discloses that the tool builds an unsigned transaction and returns a preview + opaque handle, and that signing/broadcasting is handled by send_transaction. It also mentions hardware dependency (Ledger via USB HID). Annotations indicate destructive and idempotent, which aligns with creating a transaction that can be recreated. No contradiction.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the core function. It avoids unnecessary details while still covering essential workflow steps. Slightly repetitive mention of TronGrid could be trimmed, but overall efficient.

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 adequately explains the return value (preview + handle) and the required follow-up (send_transaction). It also covers the prerequisite (pair_ledger_tron). This is complete for a preparation tool within a multi-step workflow.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (from, to, amount). The description adds no additional detail beyond what the schema states, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 it builds an unsigned TRON native TRX send transaction via TronGrid's API, and distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_tron_token_send by specifying 'native TRX send'. It also explains the output (preview + handle) and the next step (use send_transaction).

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for sending TRX) and prerequisites (run pair_ledger_tron first). It also directs the user to forward the handle via send_transaction. It lacks explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the sibling list implies other tools for token sends.

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