build_extend_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. It discloses the admin-only restriction and the fact that it builds a transaction (implying it does not submit immediately). It does not explain what happens on-chain when the transaction is submitted, whether it is reversible, or any validation side effects—though for a build transaction tool, this is partially expected.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the critical prerequisites (env flag, admin-only) followed by the core action. It is concise and scannable, but there is minor redundancy: 'ADMIN ONLY' and 'Requires protocol admin signature' convey overlapping information.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is short but covers the core purpose and admin requirement. It does not explain the return value of the built transaction or the optional new_resolution_time parameter, though the schema covers the latter. For a simple build transaction tool, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, as all four parameters (market, caller_wallet, new_closing_time, new_resolution_time) have descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, aligning with the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 verb 'Build' and the resource 'transaction to extend market deadline', which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like build_extend_race_market_transaction by focusing on 'market' rather than 'race market', though not explicitly naming 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?

Prerequisites are clearly stated: '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1] ADMIN ONLY' and 'Requires protocol admin signature', which gives strong context on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over other build_* tools (e.g., build_extend_race_market_transaction for race markets) or any explicit exclusions beyond admin-only.

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