Builder Orders

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses important scoping details: orders that never filled still count, trigger history starts on 2026-03-24, resolved placements are excluded from totalIntents/trigger actions but included in the breakdown, and response dataNotes should be consulted. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 dense and runs long, but every clause carries functional information needed because there is no output schema. It is front-loaded with the intent question and uses dashes to separate logical sections, though it could be more readable as a structured list.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the core metric, breakdown fields, exclusions, historical boundary, fill-conversion semantics, and points to dataNotes. An agent has enough to correctly invoke and interpret the result.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds contextual meaning around builder and period but does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema, and it does not mention useToonFormat. Baseline 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 exactly what the tool measures: placement-time intents for a builder's users, aggregated by period. It clearly distinguishes this from fill-plane tools by saying it is 'Measured on the PLACEMENT plane, not the fill plane behind builder_fills and builder_traders.'

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?

It provides an explicit use case: 'Use for do builder X's users place stops and take-profits, and how much of their order flow actually fills?' It also tells the agent when not to use it by contrasting with builder_fills and builder_traders, and notes the Pro tier requirement.

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