builder_overlap

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that data is 'based on attributed fills, which slightly undercount (trigger-order fills — see the response's dataNotes)', explains the output structure (activeUsers denominator, per-row fields including builderName omission when unknown), and mentions the Pro tier requirement. This provides substantial transparency about data quality and response shape.

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 that front-loads the core purpose, then explains output details, caveats, and use cases. Each sentence earns its place, and the structure moves from 'what' to 'how' to 'why'. It is somewhat long but appropriately detailed for a tool with no output schema, and it remains focused without fluff.

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 must explain the return values, and it does: it describes activeUsers, per-row fields (builder address, builderName, sharedUsers, share, feesUsd), and notes the dataNotes caveat. It also covers the Pro tier requirement and the compact toon format option. It lacks details on error conditions or pagination, but for a small top-10 result, those are less critical. Overall, it contains everything needed to call the tool 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%, and the schema already describes each parameter (builder as fee-receiving address, period enum, useToonFormat default). The description adds only minor contextual detail (e.g., emphasizing builders are 'frontends/bots/dexes') without introducing new parameter semantics. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage but doesn't go beyond it.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'top 10 OTHER builders this builder's active users also traded through...', clearly identifying what it does and distinguishing it from builder_leaderboard, builder_profile, and similar siblings. It explicitly names the metric (shared users) and the scope (period), leaving no ambiguity.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'who is builder X's closest competitor?' and 'where else does its audience trade?'. It also notes the 'Requires Pro tier' access constraint. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the use-case framing makes the intended context clear. It could be improved by explicitly stating when NOT to use this tool, but the use cases are specific enough.

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