Builder Profile

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: attributed metrics undercount ledger revenue due to trigger-order fills, builderName comes from a curated registry and may be omitted, and the tool returns 404 for addresses with no fee-ledger revenue. This is exactly the kind of caveat-rich detail an agent needs.

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 long but densely informative with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, then adds caveats, error behavior, usage examples, and access requirements. It could be slightly streamlined, but every sentence carries meaningful operational information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description properly carries the burden of explaining return contents, including the daily series, undercounting caveat, registry behavior, and 404 error case. It also covers access tier and concrete use cases, making the tool fully actionable without needing to open sibling definitions.

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 builder, period, topCoins, and useToonFormat. The description reinforces period semantics by listing day/week/month and explains that 'top coins' refer to attributed volume, aligning with the schema. It does not add significant new parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the 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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Single-builder overview for a 0x-hex builder address' and enumerates the exact outputs (ledger revenue, timestamps, fee tokens, fee rate, daily series, top coins, profitable wallets). It clearly differentiates itself from the many sibling tools by focusing on a holistic per-builder summary rather than trades, fills, or leaderboards.

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 explicit use cases: "Use for 'how is builder X doing?' or 'what do people trade on frontend Y?'". It also states the tier requirement. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like builder_leaderboard or builder_fills, but the use-case guidance is strong enough to route an agent correctly.

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