prepare_tron_freeze

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that the tool returns a preview and opaque handle for sending via send_transaction for USB-HID signing on Ledger. It also explains the resource roles (bandwidth for plain transfers, energy for smart-contract calls) and the voting prerequisite for rewards, which provides valuable behavioral context beyond the 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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose statement, reward nuance, pairing instructions, unlock flow, and output/handling. No unnecessary words, well-organized, and front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Covers most key aspects: purpose, reward mechanism, related tools, unlocking, output format, and signing flow. Lacks explicit mention of prerequisites like sufficient TRX balance or fee handling, but those are implied by the 'from' parameter. For a prepare tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema for the parameters; it reiterates that TRX is frozen for bandwidth or energy, which is already in the schema descriptions. No additional parameter details are provided.

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 action: 'Build an unsigned TRON Stake 2.0 FreezeBalanceV2 transaction.' It specifies the resource (TRX), the verb (build transaction), and distinguishes from related tools like prepare_tron_vote and prepare_tron_unfreeze by explaining the reward and unlock flows.

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 describes when to use: freezing by itself does not earn rewards; users must also vote. It pairs with list_tron_witnesses and prepare_tron_vote for full rewards. Also notes that unlocking requires a 14-day cooldown via prepare_tron_unfreeze and prepare_tron_withdraw_expire_unfreeze, providing clear when/when-not guidance.

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