build_batch_claim_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral context. It discloses a required feature flag (BAOZI_LIVE=1) and the batching behavior, but it does not state whether the tool submits the transaction or only builds/serializes it, nor does it mention any side effects. It's adequate but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with a clear prerequisite tag. Every word earns its place, and 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 builder tool with two well-documented parameters, the description gives the core purpose and a usage prerequisite. It doesn't describe the return value or execution semantics, but given the sibling tool family and the simple parameters, the description is reasonably complete for selection and initial understanding.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds little beyond the schema; it reinforces that the tool batches claims, but it doesn't elaborate on the structure of the claims array or the wallet parameter.

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 tool's function: building a single transaction to claim multiple positions at once. The verb 'build' plus resource 'transaction' and the batch action distinguish it from sibling single-claim transaction builders.

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 explicitly specifies the use case: claiming multiple positions at once in a single transaction. While it doesn't name alternatives, the contrast with sibling tools like build_claim_winnings_transaction and build_claim_refund_transaction implies when this batch tool is appropriate.

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