Suggest Order Strategy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, but the description adds genuine context: it is public, requires no auth, the strategy set can include an 'extend plus extra' variant, and quotes decay within ~3 seconds. It also names the key return fields (readyToFill percent, payout in SUN, extendData rows).

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?

Three dense sentences: what it does, what it returns, when to call it, and the staleness caveat. No filler, and the most decision-relevant facts (options, return fields, call ordering) are front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still summarizes the meaningful return fields and gives the one operational caveat (quote freshness) an agent needs to sequence it correctly against tronsave_create_order. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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 description coverage is high (83%), so field meanings are already carried by the schema. The description only indirectly touches parameters via 'payout (SUN)' and 'extendData', and adds no semantics for receiver, requester, durationSec, or resourceType. Baseline 3 for a high-coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Ask the market how a buy would be filled'), then enumerates the three concrete strategy variants it evaluates. This is clearly a pre-flight quote/simulation tool and is distinguishable from siblings like tronsave_create_order or tronsave_estimate_buy_resource.

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?

Explicitly says to use it before tronsave_create_order and names the triggering condition ('when the receiver may already have delegations that can be extended cheaper'). It even adds a timing rule: prices move every ~3 s, so re-run right before ordering.

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