build_bet_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 disclosure burden. It discloses that the tool builds an 'unsigned transaction' (no submission) and notes an environment requirement (BAOZI_LIVE=1). However, it does not explain other behavioral aspects such as validation, affiliate handling, or what the returned transaction looks like. This is minimal but not misleading.

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 that clearly communicates the essential purpose and a critical requirement. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the lack of an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core function and key prerequisite. It does not explain the full lifecycle (e.g., how the unsigned transaction is used), but for a transaction builder, the missing details are not critical for selection or invocation. It is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema—it clarifies the market type as boolean, which aligns with the 'outcome' enum, but it does not provide additional syntax or parameter-level details. It adequately supports but does not enhance 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 clearly states the tool 'Build[s] unsigned transaction for placing a bet on a boolean (YES/NO) market.' It specifies the verb (build), resource (unsigned transaction), and distinct scope (boolean market), which differentiates it from siblings like build_race_bet_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 a clear usage context: it is specifically for boolean (YES/NO) markets. It also includes a prerequisite ('REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1'). While it does not explicitly name alternative tools for non-boolean markets, the market type is specified, giving the agent enough context to choose appropriately among siblings.

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