Builder Traders

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints, so the bar is lower, but the description adds valuable behavioral caveats: attributed fills undercount versus ledger revenue, trigger-order fills are not yet attributed, dataNotes exist in the response, and cohort tiers are lifetime labels unlike 30d-rolling pulse tiers. 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 but every sentence earns its place: purpose, row fields, a data caveat, concrete use cases, and access tier. It is front-loaded with the core function and avoids filler or repetition.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: each row's fields are enumerated, including untracked nulls and the 0-if-untracked equity behavior. It also covers the undercounting caveat and Pro tier requirement. Combined with full schema param coverage, an agent has enough context to call this correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description aligns with schema parameters by mentioning sortable by builder fees/volume/PnL and window, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own field descriptions. The schema already documents sort, limit, offset, period, builder, and useToonFormat adequately.

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 wallets that traded via a builder address, scoped to a window and sortable by fee, volume, or PnL. It also distinguishes itself from pulse cohort tools by explicitly contrasting lifetime tiers with 30d-rolling tiers, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without inspecting schemas.

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 gives concrete use cases: 'who are builder X's biggest fee payers?' and 'are smart-money wallets using this frontend?'. It also differentiates from pulse cohort tools by calling out the tier semantics difference. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name a specific sibling alternative for comparison, so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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