builder_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers. It discloses an attribution undercount (trigger-order fills not included), points to dataNotes for details, explains the 'verified' stamp meaning, lists exact data per row, mentions the curated registry behavior, and states the tier requirement. This is far beyond typical descriptions and gives the agent a realistic expectation of results and limitations.

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 a single dense paragraph but efficiently packs in essential details without fluff. It leads with the core purpose, then provides supporting context in a logical order. While not a short two-liner, every sentence contributes meaningful information about the data, limitations, or usage—so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: what data is returned (revenue, trade metrics, deltas, fee rate, builderName), known caveats (undercount), data provenance (verified block), and access requirements (Starter tier). Pagination is in the schema, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it 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?

The input schema covers all 4 parameters with 100% description coverage, including defaults and enums, so the schema already provides full parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter-level material (it doesn't reference limit, offset, period, or useToonFormat), but since schema coverage is complete, a baseline of 3 is appropriate per the rubric.

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?

Opening sentence names the exact verb and resource: 'Builders (HIP-3 dexes, frontends, bots) ranked by exact revenue from Hyperliquid's on-chain cumulative builder-fee ledger over the requested period.' This fully explains what the tool does and distinguishes it from the many sibling pulse/live/builder tools by targeting the specific topic of builder revenue. The use-cases ('which builders earn the most?' or 'is builder X growing?') add further clarity.

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?

Explicitly states the intended queries: 'Use for "which builders earn the most?" or "is builder X growing?".' This gives clear context for when to call it. It doesn't name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but given the tool's unique scope, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it over siblings like builder_profile or pulse_leaderboard.

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