unlock_vesting_analytics

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get comprehensive vesting analytics' is essentially a restatement of the tool name and offers no information about what data is returned, whether it is a read-only operation, any required permissions, or potential side effects. This lacks any meaningful transparency.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose, though it might benefit from a bit more detail on the output or scope.

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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to convey what 'comprehensive vesting analytics' actually includes, whether it covers historical data, projections, or on-chain metrics, and how it differs from unlock_market_impact or unlock_tracker_stats. This leaves a significant information gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 description coverage is 100%: the projectId parameter has a description 'Project ID to analyze'. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents the only parameter adequately, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get comprehensive vesting analytics for a project' clearly states a specific verb (Get) and resource (vesting analytics) targeted at a project. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling unlock_* tools like unlock_market_impact or unlock_tracker_stats, the term 'vesting analytics' is distinct enough to suggest a focused 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description merely states what it does, without mentioning use cases, exclusions, or related tools. Given the many unlock_* siblings, an explicit comparison or context would have been valuable.

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