Skip to main content
Glama
Coinversaa

Coinversaa Pulse

Official
by Coinversaa
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Builder Traders

builder_traders
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find wallets trading via a builder address, ranked by fees, volume, or realized PnL over day/week/month. Use to identify top fee payers or smart-money usage.

Instructions

Wallets that traded via a builder (0x-hex address) in the window, sortable by builder fees paid, volume, or realized PnL. Each row: wallet, realized PnL on its attributed fills, builderFeesUsd, volumeUsd, fills, latest equity (0 if untracked), and the wallet's ALL-TIME exchange-wide cohort tiers (pnlTier/sizeTier, emitted as legacy slugs like smart_money/whale; null if untracked) — lifetime labels, unlike the 30d-rolling tiers the pulse cohort tools classify by, so memberships can differ. Attributed fills slightly undercount versus ledger revenue (trigger-order stop/TP fills not yet attributed — see the response's dataNotes). Use for 'who are builder X's biggest fee payers?' or 'are smart-money wallets using this frontend?'. Requires Pro tier. Availability: this endpoint computes per builder on request and can exceed its 30-second budget on large builders; if it times out, retry once a minute later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoRanking: builderFee (fees paid to the builder), volume, or pnl.builderFee
limitNoRows to return (max 500).
offsetNoPagination offset.
periodNoAttribution window: day, week, or month.week
builderYesBuilder address (0x...)
useToonFormatNoReturn data in compact toon format (default: true). Set to false for standard JSON.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.1
    • changedInput schema / properties / builder / description
      Previous value: -"Builder address (0x...) — the fee-receiving address a frontend/bot/dex registers on Hyperliquid"New value: +"Builder address (0x...)"
  2. Addedv0.11.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, open-world), and the description layers on genuinely non-obvious behavior: per-builder on-request computation that can blow a 30s budget, retry guidance, attribution undercount vs ledger revenue, and the lifetime-vs-30d tier distinction that affects how memberships compare to cohort tools.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded: what the tool returns comes first, then the caveats, then usage and availability. Every clause carries information, though the single long paragraph and nested parentheticals make it harder to scan than a short bulleted caveat block would be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

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 return-shape burden and does so: it enumerates each row field, flags the dataNotes caveat, and documents the availability limit. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the semantics of the emitted equity sentinel (0 when untracked) and the tier fields (legacy slugs, null when untracked) and why lifetime tiers differ from rolling ones. It does not add syntax beyond the schema for the enum params themselves.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific resource and scope: wallets that traded via a given builder address within a window, with explicit ranking dimensions. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like builder_fills (fill-level) or builder_leaderboard, and the two example questions pin the intent down.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides concrete use cases ('who are builder X's biggest fee payers?', 'are smart-money wallets using this frontend?') plus a Pro-tier prerequisite and a timeout/retry rule. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative sibling to use instead when this tool is not the right fit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools