build_close_market_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions the BAOZI_LIVE=1 prerequisite, but does not explain the effects of closing a market, authorization requirements, or whether it returns an unsigned transaction for signing. The description leaves major behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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 unnecessary words. The BAOZI_LIVE=1 requirement is placed clearly at the start. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 minimal description, leaving the return value and transaction format unexplained. The presence of many sibling tools further demands more context to differentiate use cases. The description is too sparse to be fully contextual for an agent.

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%, with both parameters described ('Market public key' and 'Caller wallet (creator)'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a transaction to close betting on a market, using a specific verb ('build') and resource ('transaction'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool 'build_close_race_market_transaction', leaving ambiguity about whether 'market' means a standard market versus a 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 implies the tool is used when you need to close betting on a market, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'build_close_race_market_transaction'. The prerequisite 'REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1' offers some conditional context, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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