prepare_tron_withdraw_expire_unfreeze

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

The description adds significant behavioral context: the two-step process (returns preview + handle, forward via send_transaction), the error condition ('no expire unfreeze'), and the destructive nature (sweeps matured slices). Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description aligns with these, providing extra details beyond 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 concise with 4-5 sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: action, prerequisite, error case, output, and next steps. No redundant information.

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 specialized nature and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: action, prerequisite, error condition, output (preview + handle), and next step for signing. It could detail the preview structure, but overall it is complete enough for the agent 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?

The schema covers 100% of the parameter's description, and the tool description repeats similar information. It adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool builds an unsigned TRON WithdrawExpireUnfreeze transaction, specifying the verb (prepare), resource (TRON WithdrawExpireUnfreeze), and scope (sweeps matured unfreeze slices). It distinguishes from siblings like prepare_tron_unfreeze by mentioning no amount needed and draining all eligible slices.

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 tells when to use: inspect pendingUnfreezes from get_tron_staking, and if unlockAt is in the future, the tool errors. It also clarifies no amount is needed. However, it does not explicitly compare with siblings like prepare_tron_unfreeze, so it loses a point for not fully differentiating contexts.

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