Get Signature Message

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint, and the description adds useful context beyond them: no auth is required and there are no side effects on the account. It also discloses the exact composite format the downstream login call expects. It does not mention expiry or how long the message remains valid, which would be the remaining behavioral detail an agent might need.

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?

Front-loaded with the flow position, then the return value, then the action to take. Three dense sentences, each carrying distinct operational information, with no padding.

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?

Even though an output schema exists, the description summarizes the return (`message`, `timestamp`) and explains how that output feeds the next tool, which is the non-obvious part. Combined with the no-auth/no-side-effects note, an agent has everything needed to call it and continue the flow.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the return shape and downstream call convention rather than inventing parameter guidance.

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?

Opens with a precise role statement ('Step 1 of wallet login') and states exactly what the tool returns (`{ message, timestamp }`). The login-flow framing distinguishes it cleanly from `tronsave_login` and `tronsave_get_session_status`.

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?

Gives an explicit sequence: obtain message, ask the user to sign with a named wallet (TronWeb signMessageV2, TronLink), then call `tronsave_login` with the `"<signature>_<timestamp>"` format. It even names the alternative accepted input (plain decimal timestamp), so no inference is required.

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