build_create_race_market_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It states the tool builds an 'unsigned transaction' (not broadcasting) and imposes a prerequisite flag (BAOZI_LIVE=1), which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not mention side effects, permission requirements, or what happens to the built transaction, leaving moderate gaps.

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 that states the core function and key prerequisite. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema details or filler.

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 well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is concise and sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role and main constraint. However, it does not explain the BAOZI_LIVE flag or the structure of the returned unsigned transaction, which are minor gaps given the context.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level constraint ('2-10 outcomes') that reinforces the schema's outcomes description, but it does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond the schema fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Build') with a specific resource ('unsigned transaction to create a Race (multi-outcome) market') and adds a constraint (2-10 outcomes). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like build_create_lab_market_transaction and build_create_private_market_transaction by naming the Race market type.

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 usage for creating Race markets and notes a prerequisite ('REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1'), but it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives or when not to use it. No alternative tools are referenced, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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