Daily revenue per builder (date range, all builders)

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: default window ending yesterday, default top-20 cap, and the id-keying convention (slug for well-known builders, 0x address otherwise). It does not mention rate limits, pagination, or behavior when a builder filter matches nothing beyond what the schema hints at.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the resource and output shape, then defaults, then the sibling redirect. Every sentence carries information an agent needs to call it correctly.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by describing the return payload precisely: per-UTC-day revenue keyed by builder id, range totals per builder, and a grand total. Combined with annotations and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: builder keys are slugs for well-known builders and 0x addresses for the rest, and the returned structure is keyed by that id. It restates the top-20 and date defaults that the schema already documents, which limits it to a modest bump above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('daily revenue chart' per builder over a UTC date range) and immediately pins the output shape (per-day, keyed by builder id). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling flowscan_builder_revenue, so an agent can route between them without opening a schema.

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?

Gives the when-to-use rule explicitly: 'For one builder's total over a range use flowscan_builder_revenue instead.' It also documents defaults (last 30 days ending yesterday, top 20 builders) that determine when this tool is the right call.

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