Upcoming token unlock events for pool coins, nearest first: next unlock timestamp and token amount per public vesting schedule.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_token_unlocks"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them: result ordering (nearest unlock first), the returned fields (next unlock timestamp, token amount), and the scope restriction to 'public' vesting schedules, implying private schedules are excluded.
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 dense sentence with the key information front-loaded: what the tool returns, scope, and ordering. The colon clause is compact and every phrase carries meaning; minor density ('public vesting schedule' vs 'pool coins') could be tightened but nothing is wasted.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return content (timestamp plus token amount) and ordering. Gaps remain on how many events or what time horizon is returned and whether results are limited to a default market set, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline for a no-param tool is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and empty, so no semantics gap exists.
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 resource (upcoming token unlock events) and verb (retrieves/reports) with scope 'for pool coins' and ordering 'nearest first'. No sibling covers token unlocks, so differentiation is unnecessary, though 'pool coins' is a slightly ambiguous scope term.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives (none exist among siblings for unlocks), and no note on prerequisites such as whether a market or pool must be specified elsewhere. Usage must be inferred from the resource name alone.
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.