build_claim_winnings_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 immediate on-chain effect) and includes a required environment flag, but does not cover preconditions like market resolution status or whether claim eligibility is checked.

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 that front-loads the key requirement and clearly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words.

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 3-parameter transaction builder with no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a constraint but misses return format details (e.g., what the built transaction looks like, how to sign/submit it). Sibling tools likely share a pattern, but the description alone is adequate yet not thorough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it does not explain how the parameters relate to the claim-winnings process.

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 action ('Build unsigned transaction') and resource ('claim winnings from a resolved market'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_claim_refund_transaction and build_claim_race_winnings_transaction by implying standard market winnings, though it does not explicitly name the alternative.

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 a prerequisite ('[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]') and a general context ('claim winnings from a resolved market'), but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., standard vs. race markets, claims vs. refunds).

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