builder_cohorts

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently explains the attribution undercount relative to ledger revenue, the legacy slug format, the 'untracked' handling for missing wallets, and the Pro tier requirement. It also describes the output composition (largest cohort first, with specific fields). While it doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, the description provides substantial behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 contributes value: it covers purpose, tier semantics, output fields, limitations, and usage examples in under 100 words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then fills in necessary caveats. While long, the complexity of the tool justifies the length; nothing is redundant.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (largest cohort first, fields included). It covers the tier definitions, the untracked wallet handling, and the attribution caveat with a pointer to dataNotes. It also mentions the Pro tier requirement. It doesn't mention pagination or response size limits, but for this analytical tool the description provides enough for an agent to call it correctly 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 all three parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description repeats the period options but doesn't add new parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. It provides context about the tier meaning (lifetime vs 30d) which relates to the output, not the parameters directly. Given high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('split by' tiers), resource ('builder's attributed users'), and details about output fields. It also distinguishes itself from sibling pulse cohort tools by explicitly noting it uses LIFETIME tiers, not the 30d-rolling tiers, which is a key differentiator.

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 examples of when to use the tool ('is builder X's user base smart money or exit liquidity?' and 'do whales or shrimp pay most of its fees?'). It also implicitly indicates when not to use it by contrasting with pulse cohort tools, though it does not name specific alternative tools or give an exhaustive when-not list. The Pro tier requirement is also mentioned.

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