Builder-routed volume on HIP-3 DEXs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds scope context ('HIP-3 volume only', ranking window, 800+ rows, per-DEX toggle) but says nothing about rate limits, refresh cadence, or error behavior beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the data scope and closing with the sibling routing hint. It is dense but every clause carries information, with no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns, and it does so: builder shares, per-DEX breakdown with top builders, and the ranked builder fields. This is adequate for a read-only metrics tool, though pagination/return-shape nuances are left to the schema.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description hints at `dex` (rank by one DEX) and `window` (all-time/30d/90d), which largely restates schema content rather than extending it.

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 states a specific resource and scope: builder-code routed share of HIP-3 volume, per-DEX builder volume, and a ranked list of 800+ builders. It distinguishes the tool from flowscan_builders_leaderboard by explicitly scoping itself to 'HIP-3 volume only'. The lack of a crisp leading verb keeps it just short of a clean 5.

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 names an alternative and its selecting condition ('For revenue/users across Hyperliquid use flowscan_builders_leaderboard') and clarifies what `dex` does. It gives clear context but stops at one alternative, without covering when-not to use relative to other builders_* siblings.

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