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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is paid ('x402 paid tool — price $0.005'), the endpoint ('POST /api/catalysts/unlocks'), and that it returns upcoming events. It does not detail error handling or rate limits, but the core behavior (read-only, returning unlock data) is adequately covered.

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 three sentences long, with no unnecessary words. The first sentence states the tool's purpose, the second gives usage instructions, and the third adds context on value and pricing. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return value structure: 'next unlock date, token amount, USD value, category and type, plus upcoming events.' It also covers pricing and endpoint. It is reasonably complete, though it could mention that 'limit' parameter controls the number of events (already in 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 coverage is 100% with 2 parameters. The description repeats the protocol slug requirement and mentions 'Max upcoming events, default 5 (max 20)' directly from the schema. It adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool provides 'Token unlock / vesting schedule for a protocol' with specific data points: next unlock date, token amount, USD value, category/type, and upcoming events. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'catalysts_calendar' and 'catalysts_search' by focusing on unlock events and requiring a protocol slug.

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 explicit usage instruction: 'Send { protocol } (slug, e.g. 'aptos', 'arbitrum')'. It also provides context on when this tool is useful: 'Large unlocks are the most reliable supply-shock catalysts — front-run sell pressure.' While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the context is clear and includes pricing info.

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