Trader Builders

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and safe, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: attribution undercounts trigger-order fills, results are ordered by builder fees descending, builderName is omitted when unknown, and the lookback is clamped to 90d. This gives the agent important expectations about data completeness and output 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: main behavior, output fields, caveat, relationship to sibling, use cases, and access requirement. It is well-structured and front-loads the core concept before caveats and context.

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 compensates by listing exact row fields, ordering, caveats, and the dataNotes pointer. It also includes the required tier and parameter defaults, making the tool callable and interpretable without needing additional external context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the since default/clamp and contextualizes address as a wallet with attributed fills, but it does not add substantial new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents.

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 precisely defines what the tool returns: builders a wallet had attributed fills through, with output ordering and row fields enumerated. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from builder_traders by stating it is the inverse mapping, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

It gives concrete use cases: 'which apps does this trader use?' and 'how much has wallet X paid frontend Y in fees?'. It names the closely related sibling builder_traders and clarifies the directional difference, providing strong routing guidance.

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