builder_fills

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries behavioral disclosure. It notes the lookback is clamped to 90d, that trigger-order fills are not attributed (undercounting vs ledger revenue), and that the response contains dataNotes. It also explicitly lists all output fields and the order id null case, leaving few surprises. The Pro tier requirement is also disclosed.

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: main function, parameter context, field list, caveat, use cases, and tier requirement. It is well front-loaded, leading with the core purpose, and structured logically. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential operational details: how to construct calls (window, filters), what the response contains (field list), caveats (undercount, clamping), and use cases. Combined with the rich schema descriptions, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret results 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 schema documents all parameters. The description still adds value by clarifying the builder parameter ('the fee-receiving address a frontend/bot/dex registers on Hyperliquid') and giving concrete examples for coin formats (BTC, xyz:GOLD, @123 spot, #10010 HIP-4). It does not repeat schema details but enriches meaning beyond the schema, warranting a 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 clearly states the tool returns individual fills attributed to a builder address within a time window, with optional coin and wallet filters. It explicitly enumerates the returned fields, making the resource and action unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from aggregate builder tools (e.g., builder_leaderboard) by emphasizing 'individual fills'.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Use for show me the flow going through frontend X right now or auditing one wallet's activity via a builder.' It also discloses the Pro tier requirement and the limitation that trigger-order fills are not included, implicitly guiding when an alternative tool may be needed. This gives clear context for selection among the many builder_* siblings.

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