Upcoming token unlocks

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 valuable non-structured behavior: hourly refresh with data_updated_utc, result truncation to 'limit' with a 'matched' count for total filter matches, and the important coverage caveat that the futures filter only sees KuCoin and Binance USDT perpetuals. It stops short of describing ordering guarantees of the returned list beyond the sort param or any error/empty-result behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition and scope, then usage examples, then routing to siblings — a logical order. It is fairly dense and the sibling-routing sentence plus the futures caveat could be tightened, but no sentence is pure 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does partially: it names data_updated_utc and 'matched', and explains the strength rating. It doesn't enumerate the other per-unlock fields (token symbol, date, size), leaving some uncertainty about result shape.

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 most parameters are already documented, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: what 'strong/medium/small' actually measures (size relative to circulating supply), the futures filter's exchange coverage limitation, the 30-day default vs 60-day cap implied by the look-ahead, and that lang=ru yields Russian page links. It does not add anything for 'limit' or 'days' beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource — a calendar of scheduled token unlocks within a bounded window — plus what each entry carries (strength rating relative to circulating supply). It is clearly distinct from the sibling get_token_unlocks (single-coin) and get_dataset_info (coverage), so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives concrete example questions the tool answers ('biggest unlocks in November', 'strong unlocks with perpetual futures') and explicitly names the alternative for each adjacent need: get_token_unlocks for a single coin, get_method_and_track_record for rating meaning and history, get_dataset_info for coverage and sources.

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