build_finalize_race_resolution_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states a build operation with an environment requirement (BAOZI_LIVE=1), but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites beyond the flag, or what finalizing entails. This is insufficient for a transaction-building tool.

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 short sentence with an environment requirement in brackets. It is free of fluff, but the brevity borders on under-specification rather than structured completeness. Still, it earns its place with the finalize/resolve distinction.

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 the absence of annotations and output schema, the description should explain the transaction construction context. It does not mention return format, sequencing, or side effects, leaving the agent with only a minimal directive and a flag. This is incomplete for a two-parameter builder in a complex domain.

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 clear descriptions for both 'race_market' and 'caller_wallet', so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 applies; the tool name and description do nothing to enrich parameter semantics.

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 'Build transaction to finalize race resolution' clearly states the action (build a transaction) and the specific object (finalize race resolution). It distinguishes from sibling tools like build_propose_race_resolution_transaction or build_finalize_resolution_transaction by the 'race' and 'finalize' qualifiers, though it does not explicitly call out alternatives.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It only includes a prerequisite flag, no mention of sequencing relative to propose/resolve, or market eligibility. An agent would have to infer usage from the name.

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