build_add_to_whitelist_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states "Build transaction" which implies a construction/preparation operation rather than direct execution, but it does not disclose more (e.g., whether this requires special permissions, is irreversible, or what the output format is). The behavioral transparency is adequate but not detailed.

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, directly to the point, and includes the crucial prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague 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?

The tool is simple (3 parameters, no output schema), and the description conveys the core action and a key condition. However, it does not explain what the returned transaction object contains or any next steps (e.g., submit via simulate_transaction). Given the lack of output schema and minimal annotations, the description is slightly under-specified but not severely incomplete.

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% (all three parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not add any extra parameter context beyond what is in the schema; it neither clarifies nor contradicts the parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the action: "Build transaction to add user to private market whitelist." It uses a specific verb+resource and explicitly distinguishes the target (private market whitelist) from similar sibling tools like build_remove_from_whitelist_transaction or build_add_to_race_whitelist_transaction.

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 description provides an explicit prerequisite ("[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]") which is useful, but it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., race whitelist versions). Usage context is implied by the name and sibling list, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are given.

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