Builder Leaderboard

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that attributed metrics undercount ledger revenue due to unattributed trigger-order fills, pointing to dataNotes, explaining the 'verified' stamp, and warning that ledger history begins at the first on-chain entry. This is the kind of caveat an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the ranking definition comes first, followed by row contents, caveats, and usage. Every sentence carries distinct information, though the middle section is heavy enough to risk readability.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description enumerates returned fields (feeTenthsBp, builderName, prev-window metrics, dataNotes, verified stamp) and coverage behavior, giving the agent enough to 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, offset, period, and useToonFormat are fully documented in the schema. The description adds response-field semantics but nothing new about the parameters themselves, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: builders ranked by exact revenue from the on-chain cumulative builder-fee ledger. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like builder_profile, builder_traders, and builder_fills by centering on revenue ranking.

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 use cases ('which builders earn the most?', 'is builder X growing?') and a prerequisite ('Requires Starter tier or higher'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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