Builder Intelligence: category or overall summary

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/open-world safety profile, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: cohort member address lists are reduced to {count, sample}, which tells the agent output is truncated rather than complete. It still omits pagination, caching or auth behavior, but the truncation disclosure is a meaningful addition.

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?

It is essentially one front-loaded sentence that leads with the resource and scope before enumerating returned data. The metric enumeration is dense but each item maps to actual returned content, so little is wasted, though the long list makes it heavy to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly (metadata, totals, weighted averages, cohort reduction). Combined with the read-only annotations and fully documented schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, with only usage routing left implicit.

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 and the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds meaning by giving concrete category values (wallet, copytrading, desktop_trading, mobile_trading) and the 'overall' default, which clarifies the category parameter beyond the schema's terse wording.

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 the specific resource and its scope: 'the /builder-intelligence aggregate view for a category ... or overall', which is a clear verb+resource and distinguishes it from the sibling list/detail tools by labeling it the aggregate view. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with flowscan_builder_intelligence_detail, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'aggregate view' framing and the default 'overall' suggest when to reach for it, and the schema notes the category id comes from flowscan_builder_intelligence_list. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement or a named alternative such as detail for per-builder drill-down.

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