Builder Lifecycle

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

Annotations only provide readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes far beyond them by defining the five mutually exclusive status windows, the lifetime ORDERS-plane universe including unfilled orders, the formulas for retention, churn, and competitive loss, and the fact that the status test reads only recent attributed fills. This gives the agent genuinely useful behavioral context for interpreting the results.

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 dense, single run-on sentence with heavy parentheticals and nested clauses, which makes it harder to parse than necessary. That said, nearly all the content is relevant given the genuine complexity of the lifecycle status model, so the length is justified even if the structure is not ideal.

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 burden of explaining return semantics, and it does: status counts, shares, ratios, competitive-loss fees, and the lifetime-universe caveats are all covered. It also notes the response dataNotes and Pro-tier requirement. The main completeness gap is the misleading 'no other parameters' statement and the absence of any prose mention of the useToonFormat flag.

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 already documents both builder and useToonFormat. The description repeats the 0x-hex builder address requirement but actively misleads by claiming 'no other parameters' while the schema includes the optional useToonFormat boolean. That false statement undermines the parameter guidance more than the prose adds value.

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 identifies the tool as a lifetime lifecycle snapshot of every wallet that has traded via a builder, with an explicit use case: 'how many of builder X's users are still active, and how many did a rival take?'. It also distinguishes itself from builder_retention by contrasting a single historical snapshot with a per-cohort monthly grid, making the tool easy to select correctly.

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?

The description gives a direct use case in quoted form, states the Pro-tier requirement, and explains the key alternative boundary: this is one snapshot of the whole historical user base rather than builder_retention's per-cohort monthly grid. It also clarifies when the switched status is only detectable, which helps an agent decide if this tool fits the attribution context.

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