build_claim_affiliate_transaction

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the transaction is unsigned (implying no immediate submission) and notes an environment requirement, providing some behavioral context. However, it omits details about the transaction payload, validation, or subsequent signing steps.

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 extremely concise, containing only a brief environment note and a two-part purpose statement. Every word adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 with only 2 parameters, but the lack of an output schema means the description should explain what the built unsigned transaction entails. It doesn't describe the returned format or how to use the transaction afterward, leaving gaps despite the clear core purpose.

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?

Both parameters (code and user_wallet) are fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already 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 uses a specific verb ('Build') and clearly identifies the resource ('unsigned transaction to claim affiliate earnings'). It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like build_claim_winnings_transaction by explicitly focusing on affiliate earnings.

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 implies usage for claiming affiliate earnings and provides a prerequisite ([REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]), but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. No exclusionary guidance is given.

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