build_flag_dispute_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 behavioral disclosure. It only mentions an environment requirement and the transaction-building action, but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, whether it involves a financial bond cost, what the returned transaction contains, or any auth/permission requirements. This is a significant gap 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 a single concise sentence with the critical requirement prefix front-loaded. It is free of filler words and communicates the essential purpose and constraint efficiently.

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?

Despite low complexity (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the absence of annotations and minimal description leaves out key context such as side effects, return format, relationship to the dispute lifecycle, and any user responsibilities around the bond. The description is insufficient for understanding the tool's full role in the system.

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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Market public key' and 'Disputer wallet'), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no additional parameter context, earning the baseline score of 3 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 action ('Build transaction') and the specific purpose ('challenge a proposed resolution with a bond'), distinguishing it from other transaction builders like proactive resolution or market closure. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool build_flag_race_dispute_transaction, relying on the tool name for that distinction.

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 includes a clear prerequisite ('[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]') and implies the use case ('challenge a proposed resolution'). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., race market disputes), nor any exclusions or conditions beyond the environment flag.

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