trader_builders

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the attribution undercount caveat (trigger-order stop/TP fills not yet attributed), the default '30d' lookback clamped to 90d, ordering by fees, and the presence of dataNotes. It does not state authentication or rate limits, but covers the key behavioral nuances relevant to a read query.

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 several sentences but each serves a purpose: the core logic, output fields, a caveat, relationship to sibling, use cases, and tier requirement. It is structured and front-loaded with the main action, avoiding fluff. Slightly long but appropriately informative for the tool's complexity.

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 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: full field list, ordering, default/clamping behavior, attribution caveat, tier requirement, and relationship to inverse tool. An agent can call it correctly without additional information. No pagination/limits are mentioned, but this is not critical for a per-wallet builder listing.

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 parameters are already well documented (e.g., address pattern, since pattern with default and clamp, useToonFormat default). The description repeats the '30d' default and clamping but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline for full schema coverage is 3, and the description does not significantly exceed that.

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 states the tool lists builders (frontend, bot, HIP-3 dex) for a given wallet address, with attributed fills in a lookback window, ordered by fees paid. It specifies the resource (wallet), the output fields, and the inverse relationship to builder_traders, distinguishing it from an obvious sibling.

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?

Explicitly provides use cases ('which apps does this trader use?' and 'how much has wallet X paid frontend Y in fees?'), notes it is the inverse of builder_traders, and mentions the Starter tier requirement. This gives clear guidance on when and how to use it versus alternatives.

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