builder_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the conditional dependency on ODDSRAIL_BUILDER_CODE, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state whether this is a read-only operation, nor describe any side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The mention of 'stats' implies non-mutating, but this is left to inference.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no redundancy or filler. However, it is brief to the point of under-specification, so it is not a model of completeness, but as far as conciseness and structure go, it is efficient.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (conditional output, external environment variable, and one undocumented parameter), the description is notably incomplete. It does not explain the time_period parameter, does not describe the output shape (despite an output schema existing), and does not clarify the semantics of 'matched trades'. An agent would struggle to use this correctly without additional 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?

The input schema has a single optional parameter 'time_period' with a default of 'WEEK', yet schema description coverage is 0% and the description makes no mention of it whatsoever. The agent is given no information about acceptable values, format, or the meaning of 'time_period'. Since the schema itself has no enums or explanations, the description must compensate, but it entirely fails to do so.

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 names a specific resource ('builder attribution stats') and details two concrete outputs: the public leaderboard and matched trades when ODDSRAIL_BUILDER_CODE is set. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on markets, orders, or positions. However, it does not explicitly name what 'stats' encompasses beyond those two items, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 21 sibling tools covering markets, orders, and balances, the description does not state any condition for selection, nor any exclusions. The only contextual hint is the conditional ODDSRAIL_BUILDER_CODE dependency, which is a behavioral condition rather than a usage instruction.

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