Builder Lifecycle

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: mutually exclusive statuses that sum to totalUsers, the LIFETIME universe on the ORDERS plane, the exact recency windows, whether unfilled wallets are included, and the fact that only the status test reads recent attributed fills. It also discloses tier requirements, latency, and retry behavior.

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?

It is long and dense, but the length is largely justified by the need to define five statuses and several derived metrics. The purpose and sibling distinction are front-loaded, and every clause carries substantive meaning, though bullets or clearer segmentation would improve 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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and their relationships, including status definitions, retention/churn/competitiveLoss calculations, and competitiveLossFeesUsd. It also covers caveats, dataNotes, tier requirements, and operational latency, leaving little an agent needs to infer.

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 the builder and useToonFormat parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the builder address format and notes that no other query parameters are accepted, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond the schema and does not mention useToonFormat.

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?

It states a specific resource and operation: a lifetime snapshot of every wallet that ever traded via a builder, with five mutually exclusive statuses and derived retention metrics. It explicitly distinguishes itself from builder_retention by contrasting a single historical snapshot with a per-cohort monthly grid.

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?

It gives a concrete use case quote, states that only a 0x-hex builder address is accepted, notes Pro tier requirement, and provides availability and retry guidance. It also tells the agent when to prefer this over builder_retention.

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