TokenOS Tokenomics Designer

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-computation profile is covered. The description adds some behavioral context by disclosing the 48-month schedule horizon and that sanity warnings are emitted, but it says nothing about validation strictness beyond the schema's 'must total 100%' or what a warning condition actually is.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the build action first and then the outputs. No filler or redundancy; it stays appropriately compact for a definition whose parameters are fully schema-documented.

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?

For a read-only computation tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose and output content adequately. It falls short on the relationship to its sibling vesting_schedule and on explicit usage conditions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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 five parameters, including the preset enum and the bucket-level vesting fields. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: 'Build a full allocation + vesting model,' and enriches it with the concrete outputs (48-month circulating-supply schedule, FDV/initial market cap, sanity warnings). Clear purpose, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling vesting_schedule, which an agent could easily confuse with this tool.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, and never names the alternative vesting_schedule or the condition that would select one over the other. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is a per-month unlock table computed from cliff plus linear vesting, but says nothing about determinism, rounding, or edge cases such as zero cliff or 100% TGE unlock.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the deliverable (month-by-month unlock table) and then names the inputs driving it. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though it is terse enough to feel like a fragment rather than a complete sentence.

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 must convey the return shape, and it only says 'month-by-month unlock table' without columns or granularity. Combined with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and an unexplained required 'tokens' field, an agent lacks enough to call this correctly in all cases.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only loosely gestures at three of the five parameters (TGE unlock %, cliff, vesting months). The required 'tokens' parameter and 'label' are never explained, and no units, defaults, ranges, or whether the cliff month counts toward the total are given.

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 a specific output (a month-by-month unlock table) and the exact resource it operates on (one allocation), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling design_tokenomics, so the agent must infer the boundary from the tool name alone.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus design_tokenomics, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. Usage is only weakly implied by 'for one allocation', which hints at per-allocation scope but gives no routing guidance.

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