Skip to main content
Glama

unlocks.dump_risk

Read-only

Use this tool to evaluate token unlock/vesting supply overhang risk before taking mid-to-long term positions - returns tokens whose currently-locked or unlock-eligible supply exceeds a materiality threshold, each with a computed risk_level (LOW/MEDIUM/HIGH). Default data source (on-chain Sablier vesting, the current configuration - no DropsTab key set) does NOT classify VC/team vs. other holders (is_insider_vc_team is always null) and does NOT provide exact unlock timing (days_until_unlock is always null, timing_precision='pending_schema_verification') - it only reports the currently-locked supply ratio. It does report vesting_deposit_amount/vesting_withdrawn_amount (Sablier's own depositAmount/withdrawnAmount, aggregated across streams) and vesting_progress_pct (withdrawn/deposit * 100), showing how far along the vesting schedule already is. Treat a null value as 'unknown', never as 'no risk'. Always check the response's coverage_notice field. Do not use for intra-day slippage or real-time transaction simulation. Paid in USDC on Base (free while DUMP_RISK_ENABLED=false).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
noticeNo
unlocksYes
data_sourceNo
window_daysNo
generated_atYes
coverage_noticeNo
protocols_scannedYes
supply_pct_thresholdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / unlocks / items / properties / vesting_deposit_amount
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "On-chain-only field (Sablier's depositAmount, aggregated across streams). Total amount originally scheduled to vest. Null on the DropsTab path and when unavailable.",
      +  "type": [
      +    "number",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / unlocks / items / properties / vesting_progress_pct
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "On-chain-only field: vesting_withdrawn_amount / vesting_deposit_amount * 100 - how far along the vesting schedule already is. Null on the DropsTab path and when deposit data wasn't available.",
      +  "type": [
      +    "number",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / unlocks / items / properties / vesting_withdrawn_amount
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "On-chain-only field (Sablier's withdrawnAmount, aggregated across streams). Amount already claimed/withdrawn so far. Null on the DropsTab path and when unavailable.",
      +  "type": [
      +    "number",
      +    "null"
      +  ]
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, the description discloses default data source configuration, null-field semantics, missing classification/timing limitations, vesting progress fields, and cost/payment behavior. It also clarifies that null means 'unknown', not 'no risk', which is essential for correct interpretation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose, and the later caveats are materially important to avoid misinterpretation. It is longer than minimal, but almost every clause adds safety or correctness context; only the payment detail is somewhat secondary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers use cases, exclusions, data-source limitations, null semantics, required response-field checks, and cost. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly without further inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters principal, so there is little for the description to add. Per the zero-parameter baseline this is adequate, since no parameter meanings need clarification.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('evaluate') and resource ('token unlock/vesting supply overhang risk'), and specifies that it returns tokens with risk_level. It also delimits the use case to mid-to-long term positions, but it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear when-to-use context ('before taking mid-to-long term positions') and explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('Do not use for intra-day slippage or real-time transaction simulation'). It also instructs the agent to check coverage_notice, but it does not point to alternative sibling tools for those excluded use cases.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources