build_claim_refund_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys key traits: the transaction is unsigned (no immediate submission) and requires BAOZI_LIVE=1, but it omits details about returned data, validation checks, or any prerequisites beyond the flag.

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 entire description is a single sentence of ~14 words, with the precondition in a leading bracket. No filler or redundancy; it's optimally concise and 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?

For a build-transaction tool with three simple parameters and no output schema, the description provides core purpose and a precondition. However, it doesn't describe the return value format or differentiate explicitly from race refund/claim variants, leaving moderate gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions in the schema already define market, position, and user_wallet. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 names a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned transaction'), with a precise scope ('claim refund from cancelled/invalid market'). It distinguishes this from sibling claim/winnings/race transaction builders by specifying the refund source.

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?

It clearly indicates use for refunds from cancelled/invalid markets and flags the BAOZI_LIVE=1 precondition. However, it does not explicitly rule out alternatives like build_claim_race_refund_transaction or build_claim_winnings_transaction, leaving some exclusion implicit.

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