build_cancel_race_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a notable side effect (all bettors can claim refunds), and the requirement flag adds context. But it does not mention permissions, reversibility, or what the transaction actually does beyond cancellation, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, focused sentence with a clear precondition and behavior. It is front-loaded with the requirement flag and avoids any filler. Every part earns its place.

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 simple transaction builder with three parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It explains the core action and a key consequence. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like build_cancel_market_transaction or build_close_race_market_transaction, which could lead to confusion in a tool-rich context.

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%, with each parameter (race_market, reason, authority_wallet) already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific nuances beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 explicitly states 'Build transaction to cancel a race market', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_cancel_market_transaction by specifying 'race market', and from build_close_race_market_transaction by using 'cancel' rather than 'close'. The additional clause 'All bettors can claim refunds after cancellation' reinforces the purpose.

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 gives a clear prerequisite ('REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1') and explains the consequence (bettors can claim refunds), which helps an agent decide when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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