build_create_creator_profile_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose side effects, return format, or execution requirements. It merely states the tool builds a transaction, omitting whether it requires a connected wallet, estimates fees, or returns a signed vs. unsigned payload. The '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]' hints at an environment flag but does not explain its implications.

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 one sentence with no fluff, effectively front-loading the core purpose. However, the unexplained '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]' prefix is a cryptic distraction that reduces clarity, though it does not make the text lengthy.

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 transaction-building tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not clarify what the returned transaction looks like, whether it is ready to sign, or any prerequisites (e.g., network, connected wallet). This is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without external knowledge.

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; it only repeats the purpose. The schema already provides clear descriptions for display_name, creator_wallet, and creator_fee_bps, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 specifies the verb 'Build', the resource 'transaction', and the object 'create on-chain creator profile', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_update_creator_profile_transaction or build_claim_creator_transaction. However, it lacks nuance about the exact scope of the transaction (e.g., whether it includes token creation or metadata initialization), so it is not maximally specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to update vs. create a profile). The only contextual hint is the '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]' prefix, which states a prerequisite but does not explain usage scenarios. This fails to help the agent choose among the many sibling transaction builders.

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