prepare_tron_token_send

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

Beyond annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true), the description reveals key behaviors: decimals resolved from canonical table, return format (preview + opaque handle), fee-limit default, and Ledger display differences between USDT and other tokens. This adds meaningful context.

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 five well-structured sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action, then efficiently covers constraints, defaults, output, and device behavior. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the output (preview + opaque handle) and covers important behavioral details (Ledger compatibility, fee default, token restrictions). It could be improved by mentioning error scenarios beyond rejection.

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% with clear descriptions for each parameter. The description adds some value by explaining the human-readable amount format and fee-limit override, but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 builds an unsigned TRC-20 transfer transaction, explicitly naming the canonical set (USDT, USDC, USDD, TUSD) and mentioning the TronGrid endpoint. This distinguishes it from related TRON tools like prepare_tron_trc20_approve and from generic prepare_token_send.

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 instructs users to forward the result to send_transaction for Ledger signing, explains the default and override for fee_limit, and notes that unknown TRC-20s are rejected. It does not explicitly list alternatives for other token types, but the context of canonical set boundary is clear.

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