Create Energy or Bandwidth Order (Internal)

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

Beyond the annotations it discloses the financial side effect (spends internal TRX balance, creates a live order), the non-idempotency consequence (each call places a new order), the staleness risk that can cause a revert, and the credential-forwarding model (server forwards the key; never pass keys as arguments). This is materially more than readOnlyHint/idempotentHint convey.

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 what the tool does, then auth, then side effects, then sibling routing, then the estimate caveat, then return shape — a logical order with no filler. It is dense and long-ish, but nearly every clause carries an actionable constraint.

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 a mutation tool with 7 params including a nested options object, an output schema, and a confusingly similar sibling, the description covers auth, side effects, the alternative tool, the pre-call estimate dependency, and the return value. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning for `unitPrice` by tying it to a just-refreshed estimate rather than any stale quote. It does not touch the nested `options` guards, which the schema already documents well.

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+resource: place a new buy order for ENERGY or BANDWIDTH, paid from the internal account balance. It also distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling `tronsave_create_order` by naming the api-key/internal path versus the signature-session market path.

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 explicit routing (use `tronsave_create_order` for signature-session market orders), explicit auth prerequisites (api-key mode or signature mode with internal account), and an operational rule: always derive `unitPrice` from a fresh `tronsave_internal_order_estimate` immediately before submitting.

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