Upcoming token-unlock calendar: the biggest unlocks across a basket of tokens within N days, ranked by USD value. Send { protocols?, days? }. See which supply shocks are coming and when. [x402 paid tool — price $0.005; POST /api/catalysts/calendar]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look-ahead window in days, default 30 (max 180) | |
| protocols | No | Optional array of protocol slugs; defaults to major tokens |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must define behavioral traits. It correctly identifies this as a read-only query and discloses it is a paid tool ($0.005). However, it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, error handling, or side effects – though none are expected for a calendar query.
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 relatively concise at two sentences plus a bracket. It front-loads the main purpose and includes practical details (paid tool, endpoint). The bracket notation is slightly cryptic but acceptable.
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 simplicity of the tool (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core functionality and input. However, it lacks explanation of the output format (e.g., what data is returned per unlock) and does not differentiate from the sibling catalysts_unlocks tool, leaving the agent to guess usage boundaries.
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 already has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both 'days' and 'protocols'. The description merely restates them in a shorthand and adds no additional context, such as how to obtain protocol slugs or the meaning of default token basket.
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 clearly states it provides an 'upcoming token-unlock calendar' with specific features: biggest unlocks, basket of tokens, time window, ranked by USD value. It distinguishes from siblings like catalysts_unlocks by emphasizing calendar format and ranking.
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?
The description gives example input '{ protocols?, days? }' and explains the output purpose ('see which supply shocks are coming and when'). However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus related tools (e.g., catalysts_unlocks) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are organized by domain prefix (e.g., 'crypto_', 'rh_', 'snipe_'), which helps distinguish between areas. Within each domain, they serve distinct purposes, though some overlap between domains exists (e.g., price data appears in multiple groups). Overall, an agent can navigate effectively.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a domain prefix and a verb_noun combination (e.g., 'compliance_risk', 'rh_stock', 'snipe_honeypot'). This makes the API predictable and easy to explore.
With 159 tools, the server is extremely large. While the broad scope of web3 and utility functions justifies many tools, the count is significantly above the typical range for a coherent toolkit, potentially overwhelming agents and increasing selection error.
The toolkit covers a wide range of web3 operations: crypto, DeFi, compliance, safety, scheduling, memory, etc. There are no obvious major gaps for its intended purpose, though some niche areas might be missing.