Builder Cohorts

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that tiers are LIFETIME labels in legacy slug form, that untracked wallets are surfaced so per-tier counts sum to totalUsers, that attribution undercounts versus ledger revenue, and that the computation may exceed a 30s budget (retry once a minute later).

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence and keeps caveats tight, though it is dense and packs several clauses (attribution, tiers, Pro tier, timeout) into a long paragraph. Efficient but not maximally scannable.

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 full burden and does so: it enumerates the returned fields (users, share of totalUsers, builder fees, attributed volume, realized PnL, fills) and points to the response's dataNotes for attribution caveats.

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 period/builder/useToonFormat are already documented in the schema. The description adds conceptual meaning to the tier outputs (pnlTiers/sizeTiers slugs) but contributes little parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: the cohort composition of a builder's attributed users over day/week/month, split by all-time profitability tier and size tier. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it emits LIFETIME legacy-slug tiers rather than the 30d-rolling tiers used by the pulse cohort tools.

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?

Gives concrete motivating questions ('is builder X's user base smart money or exit liquidity?', 'do whales or shrimp pay most of its fees?') and states the Pro-tier prerequisite plus availability/retry behavior. It even contrasts with the alternative cohort tools.

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