User Auto Setting

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, but the description adds important context beyond them: it requires a wallet signature identity and returns the complete `autoSettings` object. The overwrite-avoidance warning provides a concrete operational reason to call it first.

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 three tight sentences. The core action and return value come first, followed by the critical usage ordering and the authentication prerequisite, with no wasted phrasing.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not enumerate return fields, and it still notes that the full `autoSettings` object is returned. With annotations and schema handling safety and structure, the description covers purpose, prerequisite authentication, and workflow placement completely.

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 per the baseline rule this scores 4. There is no parameter detail to add, and the description appropriately focuses on the return value and call sequencing instead.

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 states a specific verb and resource: read the current user's auto-sell configuration (`autoSettings`). It clearly distinguishes this read operation from the sibling write tools `tronsave_register_auto_sell` and `tronsave_update_auto_sell_setting`.

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 tells the agent when to call this tool: before registering or updating auto-sell settings, to avoid overwriting unintended fields. It names the two relevant alternative actions and explains the ordering constraint, leaving little ambiguity.

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