prepare_tron_claim_rewards

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description adds that the transaction is unsigned, returns a preview + opaque handle, and depends on a cooldown. It warns against empty-claim builds. No contradictions 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?

Three concise sentences cover purpose, prerequisite, error condition, and next step. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 preparation nature and 1 parameter, the description covers what the tool does, why it's needed (avoid empty builds), constraints (cooldown), and the necessary follow-up. No output schema, but the preview+handle mention suffices.

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 single parameter 'from' is fully described in the schema (address format and cooldown). The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 TRON WithdrawBalance transaction to claim voting rewards, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prepare_tron_freeze by focusing on reward claiming and references get_tron_staking as a prerequisite.

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 advises pairing with get_tron_staking to read claimableRewards to avoid empty transactions, mentions the 24-hour cooldown and TronGrid error, and specifies the next step (forward via send_transaction for signing). Provides clear when-to-use and alternatives.

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