build_claim_race_refund_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the transaction is unsigned, implying no on-chain side effects, and includes the critical environment prerequisite [REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]. This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the tool's name and schema.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the essential environment requirement, and conveys purpose and context without any unnecessary words. It is optimally concise.

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 transaction-builder tool with simple parameters and no annotated safety profile, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly: what it does, when to use it, and the environment requirement. The lack of an output schema is acceptable since the return value is implied as an unsigned transaction.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (position, race_market, user_wallet) with clear explanations. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Build', the resource 'unsigned transaction', and the specific purpose 'to claim refund from cancelled race market'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_claim_race_winnings_transaction and build_claim_refund_transaction by specifying the race-specific and refund-after-cancellation context.

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 the tool is used when a race market has been cancelled and a refund must be claimed. While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the phrase 'from cancelled race market' provides clear contextual guidance, and the sibling naming pattern further differentiates usage.

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