build_add_to_race_whitelist_transaction

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining behavior. It only states the intent and a dev-environment requirement. It does not disclose that building a transaction typically returns an unsigned transaction that must then be signed and submitted, nor does it mention any side effects, fees, or permissions. This is a significant gap for a transaction builder.

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 a single sentence of about 12 words, front-loading the environment requirement before the core action. Every word contributes to conveying purpose or prerequisite; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, this description is too sparse. It fails to tell the agent what to do with the returned transaction (e.g., sign/submit), who should sign (creator_wallet), or whether the operation has side effects. The agent may misuse the tool without additional context on the transaction lifecycle.

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 input schema has descriptions for all three parameters (race_market, user_to_add, creator_wallet), giving it 100% schema coverage. The description adds no further parameter details beyond the general purpose, so the baseline of 3 applies. No compensation is needed.

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 succinctly states the verb ('Build transaction') and the precise resource ('add user to race market whitelist'). It clearly distinguishes this from the generic 'build_add_to_whitelist_transaction' and from other race whitelist operations like removing or creating whitelists. No ambiguity remains about the tool's function.

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 includes a practical prerequisite condition '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]', which tells the agent when the tool is callable. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as 'build_add_to_whitelist_transaction' for non-race markets or 'build_remove_from_race_whitelist_transaction' for removing. Usage context is implied by the name rather than spelled out.

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