attribution_ledger

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds meaningful behavioral context: data is aggregated per Sunday-start week and per wallet, maintainer wallets are split into an 'external' line, and the source is Polymarket's public builder feed, making every figure externally verifiable at the given URL. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads what the ledger contains and the aggregation granularity, while the second provides source and verifiability. Every clause earns its place, and the density is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 no-argument, read-only, idempotent tool, the description is nearly complete: it states scope, aggregation, wallet treatment, source, and a verification endpoint. The only minor gap is the absence of any explicit output format or field listing, since there is no output schema to carry that information, but the ledger concept and contents are described well enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns.

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 has zero parameters of any kind, so the baseline is 4: the parameter semantics dimension is essentially not applicableable, and the description correctly spends no effort describing parameters. It does not need to compensate for any schema coverage gap because there are no parameters to document.

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 identifies the tool as an attribution ledger for a specific builder code, stating what it contains: every trade carrying the code, aggregated by Sunday-start week and wallet, with maintainer wallets split out. It is more than a tautology and gives a concrete resource, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related builder_stats sibling or name any alternative.

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?

The description tells what the ledger is and how it is built, but it never states when to use this tool versus the many sibling market, order, or stats tools. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool's purpose alone.

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