build_propose_race_resolution_transaction

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only mentions a requirement (BAOZI_LIVE=1) and states the action, but does not explain whether the transaction is submitted immediately, what side effects it has, or what the returned data represents. For a transaction builder, this is a notable transparency gap.

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 immediately states the purpose and the critical requirement. There is no unnecessary wording or repetition, making it highly concise and well structured.

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?

With only 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for understanding the basic action, but it lacks broader context about the proposal/resolution workflow (e.g., that this builds a transaction to be submitted later, or how it fits with finalize transactions). Given the existence of many sibling transaction builders, a bit more context would improve completeness.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, and all parameters have descriptive names and descriptions (e.g., 'winning_outcome_index' described as 'Index of winning outcome (0-based)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action: 'Build transaction to propose race market outcome.' The inclusion of 'race' distinguishes it from sibling tool build_propose_resolution_transaction, and 'propose' sets it apart from resolve/finalize transaction builders.

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 requirement 'REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1' provides a usage prerequisite, implying this tool is only available in a specific environment. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools like build_propose_resolution_transaction or build_finalize_race_resolution_transaction.

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