Flash Unstake Market

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint`, `idempotentHint`, and `openWorldHint`, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful field semantics beyond annotations: amounts are SUN-scaled and `estimateCompletionTime` is in seconds, and it clarifies what each lifecycle status means.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds value: the status meanings, the unit notes, and the access model. There is no filler or redundancy beyond the brief public/read-only reminder.

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 and annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description provides enough context to select and call the tool: status filters, unit semantics, and public access. Pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 67%, and the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's bare enum by explaining that `available` means open orders buyers can take, `ongoing` means being paid out, and `completed` is finished. It does not mention `limit` or `offset`, leaving pagination semantics to the schema.

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: browsing the flash-unstake market. It clearly explains the three order categories, which distinguishes it from the singular `tronsave_get_flash_unstake_request`, though it does not name any sibling tool explicitly.

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?

The category meanings imply when to select `available`, `ongoing`, or `completed`, giving useful filtering context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this market-listing tool versus related tools like `tronsave_get_flash_unstake_request` or `tronsave_estimate_flash_unstake`.

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