build_claim_creator_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 mentions a prerequisite and the claim action, but it does not disclose side effects, return format, whether the transaction is built only or also signed/submitted, or any state changes beyond 'claim.' The '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]' adds operational context but does not explain tool behavior.

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, information-dense sentence with a clearly marked prerequisite at the start. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 (one parameter) and the core purpose is clear. However, with no output schema and no annotation coverage, the description should explain more about the transaction-building behavior, such as whether it returns a signed transaction, requires additional inputs, or has side effects. The prerequisite is noted, but the description remains minimal for a potentially state-changing operation.

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 has one parameter, creator_wallet, with the description 'Creator wallet,' providing 100% schema coverage. The tool description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond this, so it adds no additional semantics. The baseline for high schema coverage is 3, and there is no extra information to raise the score.

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: 'Build transaction to claim accumulated creator fees from sol_treasury.' It uses a specific verb ('build'), specific resource ('creator fees', 'sol_treasury'), and distinguishes itself from sibling claim tools (e.g., build_claim_winnings_transaction) by focusing on creator fees.

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 by specifying the action (claim creator fees) and includes a prerequisite ('REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1'), but it does not explicitly explain when to choose this tool over alternatives like build_claim_affiliate_transaction or build_claim_winnings_transaction. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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