build_close_race_market_transaction

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'build transaction to close betting.' It does not explain side effects, permissions, reversibility, or what the transaction does when executed. The BAOZI_LIVE=1 requirement is a behavioral condition, but the description is otherwise minimal.

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. However, it is terse to the point of lacking context, and the bracketed requirement is somewhat cryptic, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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, yet the description provides minimal context. It does not explain what the built transaction does, how it relates to the betting lifecycle, or any prerequisites beyond BAOZI_LIVE=1. Given the complexity of transaction-building tools, this is insufficient.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning or context about parameters, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 race market. The verb 'build transaction' and resource 'close betting on a race market' are specific, and the 'race market' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling build_close_market_transaction. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclusions. The only additional context is the '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]' prerequisite, which is a condition but not a usage guideline. No alternatives are named.

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