build_resolve_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this tool submits the transaction or merely constructs it, what permissions or authorization are required, whether resolution is irreversible, or any side effects. The phrase 'directly resolve' is ambiguous and could imply bypassing normal dispute/confirmation steps, but this is not clarified.

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 that front-loads the prerequisite environment flag and states the core purpose. Zero wasted words, and the formatting is clean.

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 no annotations and no output schema, this description is too sparse. It fails to explain the context of direct resolution versus propose/finalize flows, does not mention any required conditions beyond the environment flag, and omits any description of the return value or side effects. For a transaction builder, this level of sparsity leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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% for all three parameters, each with a clear description (market public key, winning outcome, resolver wallet). The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate—the schema already handles the parameter meaning well.

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 directly resolve a market' clearly states the verb (build), resource (market), and action (resolve directly). The 'directly' hints at a distinction from propose/finalize resolution flows, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish from siblings like build_propose_resolution_transaction or build_finalize_resolution_transaction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative resolution transaction builders. The only extra information is a prerequisite environment flag '[REQUIRES BAOZI_LIVE=1]', which is a precondition, not usage context. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer when 'directly resolve' is appropriate.

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