Internal Market Order Book

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it specifies the auth mechanism (session `tronsave_login` api-key mode or `Authorization: ApiKey` header), an explicit security rule ('Never pass API keys as tool arguments; the server forwards the key'), and a concrete staleness trait ('live market depth can change roughly every 3 seconds (one TRON block)'). These are behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from structured fields.

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 purpose, then auth, then usage, then freshness — a sensible ordering for an agent parsing top-down. It is dense but nearly every clause carries operational value; only the restated 'Read-only' overlaps with the readOnlyHint annotation.

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?

With an output schema present it correctly omits return-value explanation, and it fully covers the auth and freshness concerns that matter for this open-world read tool. The one real hole is sibling disambiguation against `tronsave_list_order_books` and `tronsave_get_price_table`, which an agent would need in this crowded namespace.

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 100%, so all four parameters (address, durationSec, resourceType, minDelegateAmount) are already documented in the schema; the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only that the book covers ENERGY or BANDWIDTH, which the enum already conveys, and adds nothing about how duration or minDelegateAmount shape the returned tiers.

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 and resource ('Return the current TronSave market depth/price tiers for ENERGY or BANDWIDTH') and names the transport ('via the api-key REST endpoint'), which is unusually precise. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similarly shaped siblings `tronsave_list_order_books`, `tronsave_get_price_table`, and `tronsave_get_market_overview`, leaving real ambiguity about which book call to pick.

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 clear sequencing guidance: 'Use before `tronsave_internal_order_create` or `tronsave_internal_order_estimate` when the user needs live prices or liquidity,' plus a re-read instruction before placing an order. It stops short of exclusions — nothing says when to prefer `tronsave_get_price_table` or `tronsave_list_order_books` instead.

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