Retrieve builder attribution data for prediction markets: view the public leaderboard and, when an operator code is set, see matched trades tied to that code.
Builder attribution stats: the public builder leaderboard, and (if ODDSRAIL_BUILDER_CODE is set) matched trades attributed to this operator's code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| time_period | No | WEEK |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.18.1Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "title": "Result",
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "builder_statsOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the leaderboard is public, and the response varies based on an environment variable.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose and packs the conditional behavior into a parenthetical. There is no filler or redundancy.
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?
The core selection logic is present, and the tool is simple with one optional parameter. However, the description omits the response shape and any guidance on time_period values, which matters because no output schema is provided.
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 only parameter, time_period, has no schema description and is not mentioned in the tool description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining accepted values or the effect of the parameter, but it does not.
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 identifies a concrete deliverable: the public builder leaderboard plus operator-matched trades when an environment variable is set. It lacks a strong imperative verb but is specific enough to distinguish the tool's core data resource.
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 provides a clear conditional context by stating that matched trades are only included if ODDSRAIL_BUILDER_CODE is set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.