build_resolve_race_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. It discloses the BAOZI_LIVE requirement but does not mention that resolving a market is an irreversible, authoritative on-chain action or what the transaction output will be. Lacks depth for a mutation 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?

Single sentence with the prerequisite in brackets; it is front-loaded and without fluff. It could be considered slightly under-specified, but the brevity does not hurt the conciseness dimension.

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?

For a transaction builder with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the transaction looks like and the context of direct resolution vs the proposal/finalize flow. It only provides the core action and a prerequisite, leaving an agent to guess at return values and side effects.

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?

All three parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional context about winning_outcome_index format or resolver_wallet requirements beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States it builds a transaction to directly resolve a race market, using a specific verb ('build') and resource ('race market'). The word 'directly' distinguishes it from propose/finalize siblings like build_propose_race_resolution_transaction and build_finalize_race_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?

Mentions a prerequisite condition (BAOZI_LIVE=1) but does not explicitly state when to choose this over the propose/finalize alternatives. The 'directly' phrasing implies usage for immediate resolution, but there are no clear exclusions or named alternatives.

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