Builder Overlap

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it explains the attribution denominator, caveats about trigger-order fills undercounting, omission of unknown builderName, and that shared users' feesUsd is what those users paid to the OTHER builder. It also flags the Pro tier requirement.

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 but well-structured: it front-loads the core purpose, then details the return shape, then includes caveats and use cases. Every sentence adds information an agent needs, and nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned fields (activeUsers, sharedUsers, share, feesUsd, builderName omission), explaining the denominator, and noting the undercounting caveat. It also gives clear selection guidance and tier requirements, making the tool callable correctly without further documentation.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the schema already documents period, builder, and useToonFormat. The description adds minimal parameter-level meaning beyond restating the day/week/month window and emphasizing the builder address context, which is not enough to raise the score above the baseline.

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 precise verb and resource: it lists the top 10 OTHER builders whose frontends/bots/dexes this builder's active users also traded through, ranked by shared users. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling builder performance tools by focusing on audience overlap rather than the builder's own metrics.

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'who is builder X's closest competitor?' and 'where else does its audience trade?'. It does not name specific alternative tools or exclusion criteria, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this over sibling builder tools.

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