SiteCheck Crypto & Finance

Token emission and unlock schedule per allocation label

crypto_token_vesting_schedule

Read-only

Token emission and unlock schedule per allocation label (team, investors, rewards, etc.) from DefiLlama emissions data, by protocol slug: last unlock day and amount, next scheduled unlock (if any in the data), and total unlocked to date. Amounts are in tokens. Coverage depends on DefiLlama having the protocol's emissions file. Related tools on this server, for a different need: crypto_token_holder_concentration when you need Ethereum ERC-20 holder concentration from Blockscout: top; crypto_solana_token_extensions when you need Solana SPL mint audit from the chain: program, authorities. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "protocol": "<protocol>"
    },
    "name": "crypto_token_vesting_schedule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`protocol`	Yes	DefiLlama emissions slug, lowercase, e.g. aave

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`labels`	No
`source`	No
`geckoId`	No
`protocol`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`nextUnlockAnyLabel`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond that: x402 pricing of $0.002 per successful call with failed calls not charged, unit clarification ('Amounts are in tokens'), and a coverage limitation tied to DefiLlama having the emissions file. It does not describe behavior on a protocol with no emissions file (empty vs. error), which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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 core capability and returned fields are front-loaded in one dense sentence, followed by the coverage caveat and pricing. The cross-reference block ('Related tools on this server, for a different need: ...') is somewhat noisy with colon-separated descriptors, but it serves routing and nothing is truly redundant.

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, the description needn't explain return structure, and it still summarizes the returned fields, units, coverage limits, and cost. The only missing piece an agent might want is the failure/empty behavior when a protocol has no emissions file. That is a minor gap for a one-parameter read tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as a lowercase DefiLlama slug with an example, so the description adds little beyond 'by protocol slug'. It correctly reinforces the data source, but no new syntax or format guidance is provided. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific resource (token emission and unlock schedule per allocation label) and states the source and keying parameter (DefiLlama emissions data, by protocol slug). It then enumerates the concrete returned values: last unlock day and amount, next scheduled unlock, total unlocked to date. An agent can distinguish it from every sibling without opening a schema.

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 states the data-source prerequisite ('Coverage depends on DefiLlama having the protocol's emissions file') and explicitly routes two adjacent needs to other tools (holder concentration, Solana token extensions). It never states an explicit when-not condition for this tool, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

All SiteCheck Crypto & Finance 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?