builder_profile

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden — and it does so well. It discloses the undercounting nuance with its root cause (trigger-order stop/TP fills not yet attributed), flags the dataNotes field, explains builderName comes from a curated registry and is omitted when unknown, and states the 404 behavior and tier requirement. The only gaps are minor (no rate-limit or pagination note), which is acceptable given the disclosure depth.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a dense, single run-on sentence that piles every output field into a comma-separated clause list. A structured enumeration would greatly improve parseability. It carries a lot of information but with poor scannability — the 404 and tier details are buried mid-paragraph, and the use-case sentence comes last. Appropriately sized content, weak organization.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly enumerates the returned data and their semantics: revenue source (on-chain builder-fee ledger), the undercounting caveat and its cause, the dataNotes pointer, the registry fallback, the 404 failure mode, and the tier requirement. Sibling differentiation is handled via the 'overview' framing. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this tool correctly is missing.

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 each parameter (period, builder, topCoins, useToonFormat) already has a solid schema description. The tool description re-states period as '(day/week/month)' which matches the schema enum and adds no new meaning; the feeTenthsBp 'tenths of a basis point' clarification is output-related, not parameter-related. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Single-builder overview for a 0x-hex builder address') and enumerates the exact fields returned (revenue, fee accrual timestamps, fee tokens, fee rate, daily series, top coins, profitable wallets). It distinguishes itself from the builder_* sibling family by framing the output as a per-builder overview, contrasted implicitly with builder_leaderboard (comparative) and builder_fills (transaction-level). No ambiguity about what this tool returns.

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?

Provides two explicit, concrete use cases ('how is builder X doing?' or 'what do people trade on frontend Y?') plus behavioral constraints (404 for addresses with no revenue, requires Starter tier or higher). However, it never names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use this tool in favor of builder_leaderboard or builder_traders — the routing is left implicit.

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