build_race_bet_transaction

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the transaction is 'unsigned', indicating it does not submit or execute, and the '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]' prefix is an environmental prerequisite. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it omits further details like serialization format.

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. The bracketed requirement is placed at the start, and every word contributes meaning: it names the action, the target, the market type, and the unsigned nature. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover return behavior and prerequisites. It does cover the 'unsigned' aspect and the BAOZI_LIVE requirement, but it does not explain what the returned transaction looks like (e.g., serialized format) or whether the bet is validated before building. This is a minimum-viable description with clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (market, amount_sol, user_wallet, outcome_index, affiliate_code). The description adds no additional insight into parameter semantics or relationships, so a baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('unsigned transaction for placing a bet on a race (multi-outcome) market'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool for standard bets (build_bet_transaction). The scope is precise and immediately understandable.

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 provides clear context that this tool is for race (multi-outcome) markets and includes the prerequisite '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]'. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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