builder_traders

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and it delivers: it discloses the sentinel 'latest equity (0 if untracked)', the 'null if untracked' tier behavior, the semantic difference between lifetime and 30d-rolling tiers, and a substantive caveat that attributed fills undercount ledger revenue because trigger-order stop/TP fills are not yet attributed (pointing to response dataNotes). It also notes the Pro tier auth requirement. This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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?

Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first clause. However, it is presented as a single dense run-on paragraph with several parenthetical asides (tier slugs, undercount nuance, dataNotes) that make it harder to scan. Good density but limited structural formatting.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully carries the return-value burden by enumerating each row's fields and clarifying sentinel/null behavior. It covers the coverage gap explicitly (undercount caveat and dataNotes pointer), explains tier semantics, supplies use cases, and states the auth prerequisite. For a 6-parameter, moderately complex tool with no output schema, nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters (sort enum, limit max 500, period enum, builder pattern, useToonFormat default). Baseline is therefore 3. The description adds marginal framing — it ties the sort options ('builder fees paid, volume, or realized PnL') to the scale of an agent's question and clarifies the builder as the fee-receiving address — but it does not substantially go beyond what the schema already states.

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: 'Wallets that traded via a builder (0x-hex address) in the window, sortable by builder fees paid, volume, or realized PnL.' It enumerates every returned field per row and explicitly contrasts its lifetime tier semantics against the 30d-rolling tiers used by pulse cohort tools, clearly distinguishing it from the many pulse_* and builder_* siblings. Without opening any schema an agent can tell what this returns and how it differs from builder_leaderboard/builder_fills.

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?

Two concrete interrogative use cases are given verbatim: 'who are builder X's biggest fee payers?' and 'are smart-money wallets using this frontend?'. It also explains when the result will differ from pulse cohort tools (lifetime vs 30d tiers, memberships can differ), which is valuable routing context. However, it never names an alternative sibling tool to use instead nor states an explicit when-not-to-use condition, so the guidance stops short of being fully prescriptive.

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