get_roadmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. Describing the returned data implies a read-only operation and gives a useful preview of the payload, but it doesn't state behavior for non-v2 tokens, unknown addresses, or missing roadmaps.

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 dense sentence with zero filler, front-loading the resource and then the returned contents. It reads as a fragment rather than a complete sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 and no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting by enumerating the return fields (allocation, milestone kind/share/deadline/status/vote tally, TWAP vs graduation price). Only the input expectations and failure modes are left unstated.

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 0% for the single 'token' parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add that the token is a v2 token, implicitly constraining the input, but gives no format (address vs symbol) or validation detail.

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 (the roadmap of a v2 token) and enumerates what it contains: locked allocation, milestones, TWAP vs graduation price. It is clearly distinct from siblings like get_token or list_open_votes, though it never explicitly says 'retrieves'.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus get_token, list_open_votes, or check_vote_eligibility. The agent must infer usage from the returned-fields list alone.

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