Bulk Buy For Many Receivers

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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: it spends paymentAmount SUN from the internal balance, is not idempotent because a repeat buys again, returns one order id per receiver, and requires a wallet signature identity. It stops short of explaining batch atomicity or partial-failure behavior, which matters for a multi-receiver financial mutation.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: what it buys, who pays, return shape, side effect, idempotency warning, estimation prerequisite, and signature requirement. Every sentence carries operational value.

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 presence of an output schema and detailed parameter schema, the description supplies the remaining critical context: internal-balance spending, non-idempotency, wallet signature requirement, and a pre-call estimate/confirmation workflow. An agent has enough information to call it safely.

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 description coverage is high at 86%, so the schema already does most parameter documentation. The description adds that resourceAmount is the SAME amount for every receiver and that paymentAmount is total cost, but it does not add much beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: buy the same amount of ENERGY or BANDWIDTH for several receiver addresses. It distinguishes this bulk operation from single-order siblings like tronsave_create_order and internal order creation tools.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to estimate one receiver with tronsave_estimate_buy_resource first and to show the user receivers, amount and total cost before calling. That gives a clear prerequisite and confirmation step, not just implied usage.

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