build_claim_race_winnings_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the transaction is unsigned, implying no submission or state change. It also mentions the environmental requirement. However, it does not elaborate on side effects, error conditions, or what happens if the market is not resolved or winnings already claimed, leaving gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential requirement and purpose immediately, making it highly efficient.

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 has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should indicate what the tool returns. It only says 'Build unsigned transaction', which implies the output is a transaction but does not specify format or serialization. The prerequisite flag adds context, but the lack of return-value information and edge-case guidance makes it only partially complete.

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 covers 100% of the parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides; it does not explain how 'race_market', 'position', and 'user_wallet' interact or any formats beyond the schema entries.

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 builds an unsigned transaction to claim winnings from a resolved race market, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_claim_winnings_transaction (non-race) by specifying 'race market'.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for claiming winnings from a resolved race market. It also includes a prerequisite flag [REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1], which is a usage condition. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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