get_token_vesting_ids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this operation is read-only, idempotent, or requires any permissions. Although a 'get' operation is implicitly safe, the description should explicitly mention it, especially given the lack of annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, but could be slightly more descriptive without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the lack of output schema and the tool's simplicity, the description does not fully prepare the agent for using the tool. It fails to describe the return format (e.g., list of string IDs) or any constraints (e.g., whether the token must exist). The context of many sibling tools also demands better differentiation.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage for its only parameter ('token'), and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema. It does not specify what 'token' refers to (e.g., address, symbol, ID) or provide format expectations. This leaves the agent with no additional guidance.

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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('vesting schedule IDs for a token'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_vesting_details (which gets details for a specific vesting) and get_vesting_count (which gets a count). It is specific enough to inform the tool's purpose.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many similar get_* tools for vesting (e.g., get_vesting_count, get_vesting_details), an agent would benefit from hints like 'Use this to get a list of all vesting schedule IDs for a token, before calling get_vesting_details for specific ones.' No such context is given.

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