build_cancel_market_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the permission requirement, the refund claim outcome for bettors, and the environment prerequisite, which are meaningful behavioral details beyond the basic build intent.

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 compact, containing three short sentences that each add distinct information: environment requirement, action and refund consequence, and authorization constraint. 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 has no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential operating conditions (environment, permissions, refunds) and parameter coverage from schema. It could mention the return type, but 'build transaction' implies the output is a transaction to be signed, which is common among sibling tools.

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 some context that the authority wallet must be creator/admin, but this is already stated in the param description. No further parameter-specific semantics are provided.

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 transaction to cancel a boolean market. It distinguishes from siblings like build_close_market_transaction by specifying boolean market cancellation and the post-cancellation refund behavior.

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 notes a required environment flag (BAOZI_LIVE=1) and restricts usage to creator/admin, providing clear context for when this tool is applicable. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as build_close_market_transaction or mention when cancellation is preferred over other actions.

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