MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit

Token vesting calculator

vesting_schedule

Read-onlyIdempotent

Cliff + linear vesting with optional TGE unlock: vested/unvested on any date and the monthly unlock schedule. Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.001/call via x402 (MCP params._meta["x402/payment"] or HTTP) or X-API-Key credits. [served by tools.moneytools.dev]

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "total": "<total>",
      "start": "<start>",
      "durationMonths": "<durationMonths>"
    },
    "name": "vesting_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`at`	No	date to evaluate (default today)
`start`	Yes	vesting start date
`total`	Yes	total tokens
`tgePercent`	No	% unlocked at start
`cliffMonths`	No	cliff months
`durationMonths`	Yes	total months

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: rate limits (10 free calls/day), the per-call price, and the two payment mechanisms (x402 via _meta or HTTP header, or X-API-Key credits). It still doesn't clarify edge behavior such as what happens before the cliff elapses.

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 functional sentence is front-loaded and information-dense, with no wasted wording. The pricing/payment sentence is longer than strictly necessary for tool selection but does carry operational value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers purpose, cost, and payment paths. The main remaining gap is vesting mechanics detail (e.g., zero vesting until the cliff passes), which an agent might want before interpreting results.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains every parameter including examples. The description loosely maps its concepts to parameters ('optional TGE unlock' → tgePercent, 'cliff + linear' → cliffMonths/durationMonths, 'on any date' → at) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond that. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific computation ('Cliff + linear vesting with optional TGE unlock') and the exact outputs ('vested/unvested on any date and the monthly unlock schedule'), so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from any sibling tool, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied rather than stated: 'Free: 10 calls/day; then $0.001/call' tells the agent about cost constraints but not when this calculator is the right choice over other token tools. No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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

All MoneyTools x402 agent toolkit tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?