prepare_tron_native_send

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond annotations: the tool returns a human-readable preview + opaque handle, requires Ledger signing via USB HID, and broadcasts to TronGrid. It also explains the prerequisite session setup. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint true, idempotentHint true).

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 with four front-loaded sentences covering purpose, output, workflow, and prerequisite. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's multi-step nature and hardware dependency, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, output format (preview + handle), required follow-up (send_transaction), and prerequisite (pair_ledger_tron). It does not detail error conditions but is sufficiently complete for correct use.

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 fully describes all three parameters with regex patterns. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 explicitly states the tool builds an unsigned TRON native TRX send transaction via TronGrid's /wallet/createtransaction, which is distinct from sibling tools for token sends, freezing, etc. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 clearly outlines when to use the tool (for native TRX sends) and the workflow: run pair_ledger_tron first, then prepare, then forward the handle to send_transaction. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context among siblings implies alternatives.

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