Get Deposit Address

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds real context beyond them: the required credential (`tronsave_login` api-key or signature mode, or `Authorization: ApiKey` header), the rule that keys must never be passed as tool arguments and are forwarded server-side, and the 10 TRX minimum. That is exactly the auth and constraint disclosure an agent needs before calling.

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 purpose and trigger are front-loaded, and the auth and constraint sentences carry actionable information. The closing 'Read-only operation' duplicates the readOnlyHint annotation and could be dropped, but overall the length is justified for a tool with a non-obvious auth model.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers everything else an agent needs: what the tool returns conceptually (a deposit address), the credential path, and the deposit constraints. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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% and `amountTrx` is already documented with its minimum of 10, so the description's 'Minimum deposit amount is 10 TRX' largely restates structured data. It adds the TRX-only currency constraint but no further semantics for the amount value.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetches') and a precise resource ('the specific deposit address for the TronSave internal account'), and no sibling tool covers deposit addresses, so it is unambiguous against the list. The scope (internal account, TRX) further narrows it.

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?

Explicit trigger conditions are given: 'Trigger this tool if the user asks for a deposit address or needs to top up their TronSave TRX balance,' plus the constraint that it is TRX-only. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which is the only gap.

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