prepare_tron_token_send

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

Adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: describes rejection of unknown TRC-20s, default fee_limit behavior, Ledger signing flow, and the distinction of USDT rendering natively vs. other tokens showing raw hex. Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent nature, which the description aligns with.

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?

Description is a single paragraph with front-loaded main purpose, followed by key details. It is efficient but could be slightly more concise by combining related sentences (e.g., preview and handle mention).

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 mentions the return is a 'preview + opaque handle,' which is adequate but vague. It covers the main workflow, Ledger integration, and fee info. Missing explicit details on the preview structure, but still complete enough for an AI to select and invoke correctly.

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 covers all 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds context by explaining decimal resolution, that amount is human-readable, and that feeLimitTrx overrides the default 100 TRX. However, these are mostly restatements of schema info, so value added is marginal.

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?

Clearly states the tool builds an unsigned TRC-20 transfer transaction for a canonical set of tokens (USDT, USDC, USDD, TUSD), differentiating it from other prepare_* tools by specifying the exact token scope and the underlying TronGrid endpoint.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to forward the result to send_transaction for Ledger signing and mentions the fee override option. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage for non-canonical TRC-20s (though rejection is stated) and lacks comparison to sibling tools like prepare_tron_native_send.

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