Unlock Pulse

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs to add context, and it does: it discloses exactly which statistics are returned (frequency of underperformance vs Bitcoin and average move) and the specific window (the week before the unlock). It stops short of noting data-source caveats or coverage limits, which keeps it from a 5.

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 front-loads the rating explanation and then the track record, with no filler or repeated phrasing. Every clause carries distinct information.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description bears the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does so at a conceptual level (per-strength buckets, pre-unlock week, hit rate and average move). The exact shape of the response is left unspecified, which is a minor gap for a reference tool.

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 the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The empty schema is consistent with a fixed reference lookup.

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 gives a specific verb-and-resource pair: it explains the strong/medium/small rating scheme and supplies historical statistics on past unlocks. It implicitly separates itself from the sibling unlock-listing tools by framing the output as methodology plus aggregate track record rather than individual unlock events, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated — an agent can infer this is the reference tool you consult to interpret a rating returned elsewhere. There is no explicit 'use this when…' or 'do not use for individual unlock dates, call get_upcoming_unlocks instead' routing.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: the fixed 60-day window and the specific return fields such as recipients, USD value, supply share, and futures availability.

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 two tight sentences with the scope and key output details front-loaded. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no filler.

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 simple read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the time window, identifier flexibility, and return content. The only notable omission is any mention of the lang parameter, though its enum and default make it relatively self-explanatory.

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 token parameter is explained with concrete examples for ticker, name, and slug, adding some clarity beyond the schema's brief 'Ticker, name or slug.' However, the lang parameter is not mentioned at all, and schema description coverage is only 50%.

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 states a specific resource and scope: scheduled unlocks in the next 60 days for one token. The phrase 'for one token' implicitly distinguishes this from the broader sibling get_upcoming_unlocks, and the included return details make the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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?

Usage is implied by 'for one token' and the accepted identifier formats, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_upcoming_unlocks or get_method_and_track_record. No exclusions or alternatives are named.

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 and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds worthwhile context by defining the strength rating as relative to circulating supply and noting the 60-day ceiling, but says nothing about data freshness, pagination/truncation behavior when limit is hit, or coverage of exchanges.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and its key rating semantic, the second supplies usage triggers. No filler, and the bounded window is stated before any examples.

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 six optional parameters, no required inputs, and no output schema, the definition successfully conveys the result shape (a calendar of unlocks with a size rating) and the hard cap on the window. It leaves the exact per-entry fields (token, date, exchange, futures venue) unstated, which matters slightly since there is no output schema to fall back on.

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 83%, so the baseline is 3, and the description genuinely lifts it by explaining that 'strength' in min_strength is measured against circulating supply rather than market cap or absolute value. It doesn't clarify the futures filter or limit default beyond what the schema already states.

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 (calendar of scheduled token unlocks), a bounded scope (next N days, up to 60), and a return-value semantic (rated strong/medium/small by size relative to circulating supply). Clear on its own, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_token_unlocks, so an agent can't tell which one covers past vs. future unlocks from the description 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?

The example questions ('which token unlocks are coming this week', 'biggest unlocks in November', 'strong unlocks with perpetual futures') clearly anchor the intended use cases in forward-looking, size-filtered lookups. It gives positive context but no explicit exclusions or pointer to the sibling for historical data, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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