get_builder_leaderboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the definition of builder, the V2-only block constraint, and why data is unavailable for V1. This goes well beyond the tool name, though it doesn't mention return format or potential side effects.

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?

Three sentences, each adding essential value: the main action, the crucial definition of 'builder', and the temporal scope. No filler or redundant phrasing; information is front-loaded with the most important part first.

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 simple two-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description covers the core context: what it ranks, the key concept of builder, and the applicable data range. It could explicitly state the return format, but the ranking intent is clear enough.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters with descriptions (coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to add much. It does restate the ranking metrics ('routed volume, order count or fees') that map directly to the orderBy enum values, but no additional meaning is provided beyond the schema.

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 opens with a clear action: 'Rank Polymarket CLOB V2 builders by routed volume, order count or fees.' It defines the nuance of 'builder' and explicitly contrasts with V1 subgraphs, making the tool's unique scope unmistakable.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: to discover who is actually routing flow, a question V1 subgraphs cannot answer. It also constrains usage to V2-era data (from block 84902353, migration 2026-04-28). While it doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, the use case is explicit.

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